On Donnerstag, 8. Dezember 2022 12:20:55 CET Marijn Suijten wrote: > 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). FYI the patch has been merged already and is now in linux-next https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/pmi8950.dtsi?id=0d97fdf380b478c358c94f50f1b942e87f407b9b If you have any changes that need to be done please send a follow-up patch. Regards Luca > > > [1] > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20221112162719.0ac87998@jic23-huawei > > / > > - Marijn
