On 2023-01-21 17:08:25, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 22:26:31 +0100 > Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > As discussed in [1] it is more convenient to use a generic adc-chan node > > name for ADC channels while storing a friendly - board-specific instead > > of PMIC-specific - name in the label, if/when desired to overwrite the > > channel description already contained (but previously unused) in the > > driver [2]. > > > > Replace the .* name pattern with the adc-chan literal, but leave the > > label property optional for bindings to choose to fall back a channel > > label hardcoded in the driver [2] instead. > > > > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20221106193018.270106-1-marijn.suijten@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#u > > [2]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20230116220909.196926-4-marijn.suijten@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > Signed-off-by: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Other than the use in the tm5 thermal example that Rob's bot found, this looks > good to me. Yep, shouldn't have ran dt_binding_check and dtbs_check with DT_SCHEMA_FILES=just/the/one/edited/here. > I think ideal would be to fix that in a precursor patch then > do this one. Can't that be part of the current one? At least the change requested by dt-bindings here is backwards-compatible; the adc-chan@xx format with optional label property was already allowed. > Note that the existing two patches should be in the other order > 1. Update the dtsi > 2. Tighten the bounds to check they are right. Hmm, I'm never sure what goes first: drivers, bindings, or DT (considering there's an ABI it shouldn't matter whether drivers or DT go first, leaving just dt-bindings which could be used to TDD the DT... or check adjustment after the fact). Is this relationship - and the order following from it - documented somewhere? > Doesn't matter much though as the two patches will probably go through > different trees. Should be right, indeed. - Marijn
