Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: iio: adc: Require generic adc-chan name for channel nodes

[Marijn Suijten]

On 2023-01-21 17:08:25, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 22:26:31 +0100
> Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > As discussed in [1] it is more convenient to use a generic adc-chan node
> > name for ADC channels while storing a friendly - board-specific instead
> > of PMIC-specific - name in the label, if/when desired to overwrite the
> > channel description already contained (but previously unused) in the
> > driver [2].
> > 
> > Replace the .* name pattern with the adc-chan literal, but leave the
> > label property optional for bindings to choose to fall back a channel
> > label hardcoded in the driver [2] instead.
> > 
> > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20221106193018.270106-1-marijn.suijten@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#u
> > [2]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20230116220909.196926-4-marijn.suijten@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Other than the use in the tm5 thermal example that Rob's bot found, this looks
> good to me.

Yep, shouldn't have ran dt_binding_check and dtbs_check with
DT_SCHEMA_FILES=just/the/one/edited/here.

> I think ideal would be to fix that in a precursor patch then
> do this one.

Can't that be part of the current one?  At least the change requested by
dt-bindings here is backwards-compatible; the adc-chan@xx format with
optional label property was already allowed.

> Note that the existing two patches should be in the other order
> 1. Update the dtsi
> 2. Tighten the bounds to check they are right.

Hmm, I'm never sure what goes first: drivers, bindings, or DT
(considering there's an ABI it shouldn't matter whether drivers or DT
go first, leaving just dt-bindings which could be used to TDD the DT...
or check adjustment after the fact).  Is this relationship - and the
order following from it - documented somewhere?

> Doesn't matter much though as the two patches will probably go through
> different trees.

Should be right, indeed.

- Marijn