Re: [PATCH 1/3] iio: adc: Convert the QCOM SPMI ADC bindings to .yaml format

[Amit Kucheria]

On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 5:15 PM Jishnu Prakash <jprakash@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Amit,
>
> On 4/3/2020 5:34 PM, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> >
> >> +required:
> >> +  - compatible
> >> +  - reg
> >> +  - '#address-cells'
> >> +  - '#size-cells'
> >> +  - '#io-channel-cells'
> >> +
> >> +patternProperties:
> >> +  "^[a-z0-9-_@]$":
> >> +    type: object
> >> +    description: |
> >> +      Represents the external channels which are connected to the ADC.
> >> +      For compatible property "qcom,spmi-vadc" following channels, also known as
> >> +      reference point channels, are used for result calibration and their channel
> >> +      configuration nodes should be defined:
> >> +      VADC_REF_625MV and/or VADC_SPARE1(based on PMIC version) VADC_REF_1250MV,
> >> +      VADC_GND_REF and VADC_VDD_VADC.
> > Instead of this note for "qcom,spmi-vadc", you can enforce this
> > through checks in YAML grammar.
> >
> > A simple example can be found in
> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/qcom-tsens.yaml. Look for
> > the if, then, else clause which determines how many interrupts need to
> > be defined.
>
> I have gone through tsens and other examples, but I'm not able to get a
> way to apply this kind of constraint, on what child nodes should be present.
>
> In this case, the constraint would have to be that for compatible
> property "qcom,spmi-vadc", there should be at least four child nodes and
> those four should have their "reg" property fixed to the channel values
> mentioned above. I can see how to apply constraints on a single property
> like interrupts in tsens, but I'm not sure if there is a way to specify
> a lower limit to the number of child nodes or something like "there
> should be at least one child node with value 0x9 for its "reg"
> property". I could not find any examples with constraints placed on
> number of occurrences of a child node.
>
> Can you please share an example of such a constraint if you are aware of
> any or suggest some way by which this kind of constraint can be specified?

Hi Jishnu,

I misread that particular property. I don't think it is possible to
specify child nodes w/o splitting this binding into two, I think.
Please go ahead with the rest of changes. I'll keep digging to see if
this is possible.

Regards,
Amit