On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 10:39 AM Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 07, 2024 at 05:02:56PM -0600, David Lechner wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 7, 2024 at 3:27 PM Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > This makes no sense to me without a corresponding change in the SPI core > > > and possibly controller support, though I guess you could do data > > > manging to rewrite from a normal parallel SPI to this for a pure > > > software implementation. I also see nothing in the driver that even > > > attempts to parse this so I can't see how it could possibly work. > > > We currently don't have a controller that supports this. This is just > > an attempt to make a complete binding for a peripheral according to > > [2] which says: > > ... > > > So, will DT maintainers accept an incomplete binding for the > > peripheral? Or will you reconsider this without SPI core support if I > > can explain it better? It doesn't seem like a reasonable request to > > expect us to spend time developing software that we don't need at this > > time just to get a complete DT binding accepted for a feature that > > isn't being used. > > I don't think it's sensible to try to make a binding for this without > having actually tried to put a system together that uses it and made > sure that everything is joined up properly, the thing about complete > bindings is more for things that are handle turning than for things that > are substantial new features in subsystems. We do have plans to eventually implement such a feature in an FPGA-based SPI controller, so if we need to wait until then for the binding, then we can do that. But it would be really nice if we could find a way forward for the IIO driver in this series without having to wait for the resolution of new SPI controller feature for the complete DT bindings. DT/IIO maintainers, if I resubmit this series with the `spi-rx-bus-channels` parts removed from the iio/adc/adi,ad7380.yaml bindings, would that be acceptable? (Also resubmitting without this patch of course.)
