On Thu, 16 Mar 2023 13:43:07 +0100
Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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?
Harmless but little point as far as I can see given we don't happen
to have any of the generic elements defined in the generic channel
binding.
Jonathan
>
> - Marijn
>
