On 01/24/2013 05:12 PM, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Lars,
>
> Thank you for your comments / thoughts...
>
Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 1:54 AM, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> adc: adc@12D10000 {
>>
>> #io-channel-cells = <1>;
>> io-channel-output-names = "adc1", "adc2", ...;
>>
>> ncp15wb473@0 {
>> compatible = "ntc,ncp15wb473";
>> ...
>> io-channels = <&adc 0>; // First ADC channel
>
> I'm not an expert, but I think the typical way is:
> * No need to include a handle to &adc. It's logically our parent. In
> a similar way i2c devices don't specify their parent bus--they are
> just listed under it.
> * The "0" should be specified with reg = <0>
The relationship between the IIO sensor device and the consumer device is
not always a parent child relationship. In this case it makes sense to have
the ADC as the parent for the thermistors. But for other cases this may not
be true. E.g. take a touchscreen or power monitoring platform device which
uses the IIO device to do measurements.
>
> To implement this I'd imagine that we'll need a new API call, right?
> In this case the thermistor driver won't know the name of the channel.
> It can find the ADC (the struct device and probably other things) and
> knows a channel index. Am I understanding properly?
This can be done by adding a new api call, but it would be best if both dt
and non-dt based consumers can use the same function. I outlined one
possible solution how this can be done in the previous mail to Naveen.
- Lars
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
