Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] dt-bindings: iio: vadc: Update example to include unit address for node 'usb-id-nopull'

[Jonathan Cameron]

On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 12:40:10 -0700
Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 10:15:23AM -0700, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 03:47:43PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:  
> > > On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 05:14:31PM -0700, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:  
> > > > The node has a reg property, therefore its name should include a unit
> > > > address.
> > > > 
> > > > Also change the name from 'usb_id_nopull' to 'usb-id-nopull' to follow
> > > > DT conventions.  
> > > 
> > > This is ADC channels? If so, then DT convention would really be 
> > > "adc@...".   
> > 
> > Is it really? A grep for 'adc@' in arch/${ARCH}/boot/dts yields
> > mostly ADC controller not channel nodes.
> > 
> > I'm totally fine with changing the name to 'adc@...' if that's the
> > preference/convention, just want to reconfirm since the actual use is
> > a bit ambiguous.  
> 
> Could we please reach a conclusion on this?
> 
> Summarizing the options on the table so far are:
> 
> 1. usb-id-nopull@VADC_LR_MUX10_USB_ID
> 2. usb-id-nopull@57
> 3. adc@VADC_LR_MUX10_USB_ID
> 4. adc@57
> 
> My personal preference goes to something <node name>@<define>
> since the unit address doesn't just resolve to an ADC channel number
> but also includes configuation information. A literal like '57'
> conveys less information than the define, it's easier to introduce
> errors and these errors are harder to spot.

I agree that to my mind this is the most sensible option.

> 
> If 'adc@...' really was the convention (or should be) I'd be clearly
> in favor of following it. As mentioned above, in practice the use of
> the 'adc@...' node name seems to be more prevalent for ADC controllers
> than channels, so I'm more inclined towards 'usb-id-nopull@...' or
> similar.
> 
> All that said, these are just my preferences for the reasons outlined
> above, if DT maintainers really want it to be 'adc@57' or some
> variation of that, I'm fine with that too. Please let me know and we
> can move forward with this trivial series.

Rob, what's your view on this?

Thanks,

Jonathan
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Matthias