On 16/03/17 08:28, Heiko Stuebner wrote: > 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. In my case I'm not that fussed either way. Still if this list keeps growing I can see it would be better to keep it in numeric order! Jonathan > > Heiko > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in > the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >
