On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 11:10:52 +0200 Julien Stephan <jstephan@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Le lun. 14 oct. 2024 à 20:37, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> a écrit : > > > > On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 11:00:39 +0200 > > Julien Stephan <jstephan@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Le jeu. 10 oct. 2024 à 20:22, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> a écrit : > > > > > > > > On Tue, 8 Oct 2024 09:52:50 +0200 > > > > Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2024 at 05:45:45PM +0200, Julien Stephan wrote: > > > > > > ad7380-4 is the only device from ad738x family that doesn't have an > > > > > > internal reference. Moreover its external reference is called REFIN in > > > > > > the datasheet while all other use REFIO as an optional external > > > > > > reference. If refio-supply is omitted the internal reference is > > > > > > used. > > > > > > > > > > > > Fix the binding by adding refin-supply and makes it required for > > > > > > ad7380-4 only. > > > > > > > > > > Maybe let's just use refio as refin? Reference-IO fits here well. > > > > > Otherwise you have two supplies for the same. > > > > Whilst it is ugly, the effort this series is going to in order > > > > to paper over a naming mismatch makes me agree with Krzysztof. > > > > > > > > I think adding a comment to the dt-binding would be sensible > > > > though as people might fall into this hole. > > > > > > > > > > Hi Jonathan and Krzysztof, > > > > > > I am currently adding support for another chip to this family > > > (ADAQ4380-4) and it also uses REFIN.. but in another way ad7380-4 > > > does.. > > > So: > > > - ad7380-4 does not have any internal reference and use a mandatory > > > refin supply as external reference > > > - adaq4380-4 does not have external reference but uses a 3V internal > > > reference derived from a 5V mandatory refin supply > > > - all others (AFAIK) use an optional refio external reference. If > > > omitted, use an internal 2.5V reference. > > > > > > I am not sure using a single refio-supply for all will make things > > > clearer.. What do you think? Should I also send the adaq series now to > > > bring more context? (I wanted feedback on this series first). > > > > > > > Sounds like that context would be useful if you have it more or less > > ready to send anyway. I don't have particularly strong views on this > > either way. If we 'fix' the case you have here, old bindings should > > continue to work for the part you are moving over (though no need > > to have them in the dt-bindings file). > > > > Hi Jonathan, > > Just sent the new series with an RFC tag. https://lore.kernel.org/all/20241015-ad7380-add-adaq4380-4-support-v1-1-d2e1a95fb248@xxxxxxxxxxxx/ Examples in there look strong enough reason that we are going to need refin-supply in the binding anyway shortly. So might as well use it for this part as well. Just include a reference to that patch under the --- in v2. + see if you can keep the description from patch 1 and fix the assignment issue the bot found. Thanks, Jonathan > > > Cheers > Julien > > > Jonathan > > > > > Cheers > > > Julien > > > > > > > Other than the missing ret =, rest of series looks fine to me > > > > > > > > Jonathan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > Krzysztof > > > > > > > > > > >
