On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 10:22:05 +0100 Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Nothing currently defined. I'm not against it if we have users though. If it isn't actually useful in this case, even better to just drop it. Jonathan > >
