On 2022-12-08 11:23:17, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 08/12/2022 11:12, Marijn Suijten wrote: > > On 2022-12-04 17:19:05, Luca Weiss wrote: > >> On Freitag, 2. Dezember 2022 10:36:58 CET Marijn Suijten wrote: > >> [..] > >> > >> So the way this patch does it is good or does it need changes? > > > > Except the typo(s?) pointed out in my first reply, this is good to go. > > > > If we stick with generic adc-chan node names that should be documented > > in the bindings IMO, as it is currently only captured implicitly in the > > examples. Krzysztof, what is your thought on this? > > If I understand correctly, the outcome of other discussion [1] was to > use labels and generic node names. The outcome was to use labels in the driver and disregard node names as the new fwnode API clobbers those names by including the @xx register bit. (I'll follow up with Jonathan whether or not to remove the current fallback to node names, as [1] ended up discussing many different issues and nits) > In such case the patch was correct > (except other comments). As a consequence it _doesn't matter_ how nodes are named, and we _can_ use generic node names. My question for you is whether we should, and if we should lock that in via dt-bindings to guide everyone towards using labels (which i did _not_ do in the recently-landed PM8950 and PM6125, but will send followup for). > [1] > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20221112162719.0ac87998@jic23-huawei/ - Marijn
