Hi Jonathan, Thanks for your valuable feedback! Your insights are really helpful in refining my approach and ensuring alignment with best practices. 1. DT Binding Flexibility: I initially considered making the DT binding adaptable for similar SPI-based ADCs to potentially support minor hardware variations with minimal changes. However, your point about maintainability makes sense, and I see that most existing bindings tend to be more specific. I’ll revisit this and reconsider whether a part-specific approach would be more appropriate. If there are examples of flexible but maintainable bindings worth looking into, I’d appreciate any pointers. 2. MCU-Assisted vs. Direct SPI: This was more of an exploratory idea rather than a fully defined plan. My initial thought was to assess whether offloading certain operations to an MCU (e.g., pre-processing or buffering) could offer benefits over direct SPI communication with the Linux system. Given that this isn’t a typical approach, I’ll take a step back and ensure I properly evaluate the feasibility and trade-offs before including it in the proposal. If there are existing implementations that explore similar optimizations, I’d be keen to study them. 3. Reference Drivers & Guidelines: I’ll definitely check out the iio/dummy/ driver for understanding interface testing and take a closer look at recent ADC drivers to align with best practices. Also, I’ll make sure to follow the Linux kernel coding style closely and avoid unnecessary deviations. I really appreciate your feedback. It's helping me reconsider certain aspects of the plan to ensure it fits well within the IIO framework. I'm looking forward to any further insights you might have. Best regards, Prince Kumar
