On 30/08/2019 07:02, Rob Herring wrote:
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 08:09:19AM +0200, Michal Simek wrote:
On 27. 08. 19 5:35, Phil Reid wrote:
This optional property defines a symbolic name for the device.
Signed-off-by: Phil Reid <preid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/iio-bindings.txt | 5 +++++
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/iio-bindings.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/iio-bindings.txt
index 68d6f8ce063b..ffeae5aad8b5 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/iio-bindings.txt
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/iio-bindings.txt
@@ -18,12 +18,17 @@ Required properties:
with a single IIO output and 1 for nodes with multiple
IIO outputs.
+Optional properties:
+label: A symbolic name for the device.
+
+
Example for a simple configuration with no trigger:
adc: voltage-sensor@35 {
compatible = "maxim,max1139";
reg = <0x35>;
#io-channel-cells = <1>;
+ label = "adc_voltage_sensor";
};
Example for a configuration with trigger:
Just for the record. This patch has been created based on initial
discussion about label property. And Rob had not problem with using
label in connection to ina226. https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/8/27/1213
I didn't, but based on the name here I'm less convinced. 'label' is
supposed to be for needing to distinguish between more than 1 of
something. A name like 'adc_voltage_sensor' doesn't really.
Rob
That's the problem we're try to solve. Having multiple devices and try to
determine which device is which.
eg: Mutliple adc's.
For example I have the same dac chip on multiple boards that do different
things, it's difficult to id them.
so label examples could be:
label = "current_control_group1";
label = "voltage_control_group1";
Are you totally against this or is it a problem with me not being clear
with the problem and the wording of the commit message or the example?
--
Regards
Phil Reid
