On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 13:47:03 -0600 David Lechner <dlechner@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 2:29 PM David Lechner <dlechner@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > ... > > > + > > +/* fully differential */ > > +DEFINE_AD7380_DIFFERENTIAL_2_CHANNEL(ad7380_channels, 16); > > +DEFINE_AD7380_DIFFERENTIAL_2_CHANNEL(ad7381_channels, 14); > > +/* pseudo differential */ > > +DEFINE_AD7380_DIFFERENTIAL_2_CHANNEL(ad7383_channels, 16); > > +DEFINE_AD7380_DIFFERENTIAL_2_CHANNEL(ad7384_channels, 14); > > + > > Similar question to [1] in light of [2]: Since AD7383 and AD7384 are > pseudo-differential, should we handle them differently? I.e. add > aina-supply and ainb-supply DT properties for the negative inputs > (typically a V_REF / 2 supply) and remove the differential flag from > the channel spec. > > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iio/CAMknhBH2Pqa9xpPxnTCxJegVTbOG-QDeJA4YrQUPfj+hfSs73A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > [2]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iio/CAMknhBF5mAsN1c-194Qwa5oKmqKzef2khXnqA1cSdKpWHKWp0w@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ Yes. I think that gives a more intuitive interface for users. I don't think we need to 'fix' any drivers already upstream as presenting these as differential is not an ABI error as far as I am concerned. It's just less than ideal choices given our views now! (as a result of these discussions on what pseudo differential means in practice) Jonathan
