On 2023-02-05 15:06:45, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 15:25:01 -0600
> Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 01, 2023 at 09:44:46PM +0100, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> > > Update the example to reflect a future requirement for the generic
> > > adc-chan node name on ADC channel nodes, while conveying the board name
> > > of the channel in a label instead.
> >
> > I don't think we've defined 'adc-chan' as THE generic name. Looks like
> > we have:
> >
> > adc-chan
> > adc-channel
> > channel
> >
> > 'channel' is the most common (except for QCom).
> Good spot.
>
> We also have that defined as the channel name in
> bindings/iio/adc.yaml
Good point, let's match adc.yaml and use 'channel' instead. I'll
respin this series with thas, as well as rebasing on -next to solve
conflicts with 8013295662f5 ("arm64: dts: qcom: sc8280xp: Add label
property to vadc channel nodes"): supposedly that DT originally relied
on the `@XX` suffix bug :)
> Now this particular binding doesn't use anything from that
> generic binding (other than trivial use of reg) but better to be
> consistent with it than not!
Should it inherit the common binding, or was it omitted for a reason?
- Marijn
