Re: [PATCH 0/6] iio: adc: ltc2497: add LTC2493 support and line-frequency rejection

[Jonathan Cameron]

On Tue, 13 Oct 2026 18:20:14 +0300
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 13, 2026 at 04:09:46PM +0100, Nuno Sá wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 13, 2026 at 04:58:47PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:  
> > > On Tue, Oct 13, 2026 at 02:15:55PM +0100, Nuno Sá wrote:  
> > > > On Fri, 09 Oct 2026 11:43:33 +0300, Andrei Stancovici <andrei.stancovici@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:  
> 
> [...]
> 
> > > > > - pyadi-iio hardware test suites: 41/41 on the LTC2493, 36/36 on the
> > > > >   LTC2499.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The series was rebased onto the base commit below after those runs. The
> > > > > rebase left all four touched files byte-identical, so the code posted
> > > > > here is the code that was tested.  
> > > > 
> > > > Not sure I agree with how you split the series. To me, patch 2, 3, 4 and
> > > > 6 could be very well just one (adding support for the new chip). Patch 5
> > > > becomes preliminary patch which is adding a new feature the new chip
> > > > will also take advantage on.  
> > > 
> > > But they are sound like a good feature-wise split. I would leave that as is
> > > currently.  
> > 
> > Yeah but all of those features are things already supported in the
> > driver. I would agree if we needed substantial changes for the new chip
> > being added. But that's not the case, just a few lines (or even one
> > liner in one IIRC). To me it really makes no sense adding a new chip to
> > a driver and in a following patch on the same series just setting one
> > more chip_info boolean to true.  
> 
> Fair point.
> 
> > Have no strong feelings though but not how things are usually done.  
> 
> Okay, meaning let Jonathan to decide.

Current break down does leave us with the oddity of a chip_info
structure that suggests the chip only supports a subset of
stuff that then grows.  I agree with Nuno that first bunch of
patches would look better combined. Normally I'd ask for the
channel number thing I just asked as a precursor but seems it
will be ugly like that, so throwing that in as well is fine.

Jonathan

>