On 26/09/2022 17:05, Luca Weiss wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof,
>
> On Montag, 26. September 2022 10:54:23 CEST Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 25/09/2022 18:18, Luca Weiss wrote:
>>> The iadc node name is supposed to be just 'adc' and the compatible is
>>> only supposed to be qcom,spmi-iadc according to the bindings.
>>>
>>> Adjust the node to match that.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Luca Weiss <luca@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-pm8941.dtsi | 4 ++--
>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-pm8941.dtsi
>>> b/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-pm8941.dtsi index 3c15eecf2f21..33517cccee01
>>> 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-pm8941.dtsi
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-pm8941.dtsi
>>> @@ -131,8 +131,8 @@ adc-chan@48 {
>>>
>>> };
>>>
>>> };
>>>
>>> - pm8941_iadc: iadc@3600 {
>>> - compatible = "qcom,pm8941-iadc",
> "qcom,spmi-iadc";
>>> + pm8941_iadc: adc@3600 {
>>> + compatible = "qcom,spmi-iadc";
>>
>> I am not sure this is correct. Usually specific compatibles are encouraged.
>
> I'm happy to change it the other way also.
>
> But the sibling of this compatible, qcom,spmi-vadc also only has that single
> compatible so it'd align it with that.
Ugh, there is a mess around them. Some other ADCs have specific
compatibles, some not, so there is no consistency.
I propose to have device specific compatible with qcom,spmi-iadc
fallback, so basically document the DTS in bindings. Maybe other IADC
will need some quirks, so specific compatible helps here.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
