Am Mittwoch, 15. M?rz 2017, 18:03:52 CET schrieb cl at rock-chips.com: > From: Chen Liang <cl at rock-chips.com> > > The rk3328 saradc is the same as rk3399. > > Signed-off-by: Chen Liang <cl at rock-chips.com> > --- > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/rockchip-saradc.txt | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/rockchip-saradc.txt > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/rockchip-saradc.txt index > 205593f..f81bc20 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/rockchip-saradc.txt > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/rockchip-saradc.txt > @@ -5,6 +5,7 @@ Required properties: > - "rockchip,saradc": for rk3188, rk3288 > - "rockchip,rk3066-tsadc": for rk3036 > - "rockchip,rk3399-saradc": for rk3399 > + - "rockchip,rk3328-saradc", "rockchip,rk3399-saradc": for rk3328 not sure how iio people see that, but I would suggest keeping the order, so put rk3328 above rk3399. Heiko
