On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 17:13:16 +0000 Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 18:50:43 +0200 > Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 03:29:27PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > > On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 22:56:41 +0200 Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > > On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 08:48:57PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 22:32:41 +0200 Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > The DAC081C081 is a TI DAC whose software interface is compatible with > > > > > > the DAC5571. It is the 8-bit version of the DAC121C081, already > > > > > > supported by the DAC5571 bindings. Extends the bindings to support this > > > > > > chip. > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Laurent, > > > > > > > > > > Given it's a part number where no one is going to guess it is compatible > > > > > with the DAC5571 and that we don't have a history of fallback compatibles > > > > > I'm fine with this change, but just wanted to ask is a fallback compatible > > > > > useful to you to run with older kernels? > > > > > > > > > > I should have noticed when Peter added the dac121c081. If we add a fallback > > > > > should do that one as well. > > > > > > > > I've indeed noticed that there should have been a fallback for > > > > dac121c081, but didn't stop to ponder why that wasn't the case, and just > > > > went along with the flow :-) I agree a fallback could be useful, which > > > > would then allow dropping patch 2/5 from this series (*). I can do so if > > > > you prefer. > > > > > > > > * This is not entirely true. While the DAC1081C081 is largely compatible > > > > with the DAC5573, they have different values for one of the power-down > > > > resistors (2.5kΩ instead of 1kΩ if I recall correctly). To be completely > > > > accurate, the driver should report that. We could still use the fallback > > > > compatible, reporting the wrong power-down resistor value. > > > > > > Hmm - Would anyone really care about that value being wrong? > > > > I don't have enough expertise with IIO to be sure, but my guess is that > > nobody would. > > > > > I think perhaps that's just about significant enough that maybe a fallback > > > compatible doesn't make sense here. > > > > Then let's keep it simple and just merge this patch as-is ? :-) > Makes sense. I'm on wrong computer at the moment but will pick it up at > weekend if not before. Sooner it is. Applied 1 and 2 to the togreg branch of iio.git and pushed out as testing on the extremely unlikely chance that 0-day finds a build issue... I grabbed them today because I have a memory like a gold fish and the thread is deep enough that I might skip over later on basis 'it must have outstanding questions' :) Jonathan > > Jonathan > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/dac/ti,dac5571.yaml | 1 + > > > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/dac/ti,dac5571.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/dac/ti,dac5571.yaml > > > > > > index 79da0323c327..e59db861e2eb 100644 > > > > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/dac/ti,dac5571.yaml > > > > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/dac/ti,dac5571.yaml > > > > > > @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ properties: > > > > > > - ti,dac5573 > > > > > > - ti,dac6573 > > > > > > - ti,dac7573 > > > > > > + - ti,dac081c081 > > > > > > - ti,dac121c081 > > > > > > > > > > > > reg: > > >
