On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 1:00 PM Stephen Boyd <swboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Quoting Jonathan Cameron (2020-08-01 08:06:39) > > On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 10:48:38 -0600 > > Daniel Campello <campello@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/proximity/semtech,sx9310.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/proximity/semtech,sx9310.yaml > > > new file mode 100644 > > > index 00000000000000..5739074d3592fe > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/proximity/semtech,sx9310.yaml > > > @@ -0,0 +1,65 @@ > [...] > > > + > > > + "#io-channel-cells": > > > + const: 1 > > > + > > > +required: > > > + - compatible > > > + - reg > > > + - "#io-channel-cells" > > > > Missed this in earlier review (only noticed when I saw whilst santity > > checking earlier versions. > > > > Fairly sure we should only need #io-channel-cells if we have > > a consumer of a channel somewhere else in DT. So it's not > > required as far as I can see. > > > > This is mostly a decision for Rob to make, but I would make it required > because the device is always an io channel provider. It may be that it > isn't providing anything in the DT to something else in the DT but it is > providing this information somewhere so always having to spell that out > is simple and doesn't hurt. I agree. If the user is split in a board file or overlay, we don't want to have to be adding it to the provider at that time. Rob
