On 31/10/2020 18:48:37+0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> > > This binding raises a few questions. > 1) Do we need #address-cells and #size-cells as the child nodes don't have > a reg property? A few dtsi files include these so if we drop the > requirement we will need to clean those up as well. You can drop them. > 2) Renamed to a specific part. Given we have another at91 ADC binding > it is clear now this won't cover all at91 parts so lets name it > after a specific part. > 3) For atmel,adc-res-names the description is a big vague. Are other > resolution names allowed? We don't seem to have any currently. > I had a look and this is a legacy mess, I'll send a fix soon. > There are a few things we would do differently in an ADC binding if we > were starting from scratch but we are stuck with what we have (which > made sense back when this was written!) > > We may be able to tighten up some elements of this binding in the future > by careful checking of what values properties can actually take. > Is there anything generic to select the resolution? I'll be happy to remove atmel,adc-res-names, atmel,adc-res and atmel,adc-use-res as there is no upstream users and the default is to use the highest resolution. -- Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
