On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 6:57 AM, Bjorn Andersson
<bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat 18 Mar 06:33 PDT 2017, Linus Walleij wrote:
>
>> +adc-channel@0c {
>
> Shouldn't the @ be followed by the value of the first cell in "reg"?
> (Which will collide if we name them all "adc-channel").
I don't think we have a rule about these other than that they should
be unique. I renamed them so that it is unique using the combined
premux+amux number:
>> + reg = <0x00 0x0c>;
So this becomes
adc-channel@000c {
reg = <0x00 0x0c>;
};
>> + On PM8058 the hardware only supports 16 channels, but we get the same
>> + channels repeating with its input divided down by 1 or 3. Channels 00,
>> + 10, 20, ... f0 are the raw values, 04, 14, 24 .. f4 are "unity" channels
>> + divided by 1, and 08, 18, 28 .. f8 are channels divided by 3. Bits 0
>> + and 1 of the channel index should always be 0.
>> +
>> + On PM8921 the hardware supports more than 16 channels through a complex
>> + routing matrix using a premux, so 00, 10, 20 .. f0 are the basic raw
>> + channels while another set of channels appear for 04, 14, 24 .. f4,
>> + and again some of the same channels appear again divided down by 3
>> + in 08, 18, 28 .. f8. Again bits 0 and 1 of the channel index should
>> + always be 0.
>
> While I believe documenting this is a good thing I do not think it adds
> value to this binding document (other than showing Rob the absurdness of
> the addressing scheme). Please consider moving it to the driver (haven't
> checked how you commented it yet) and drop it from here.
Dropped it.
I'm sending this modified version as v2.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
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
