Re: [PATCH v4 5/5] dt-bindings: iio: adc: Require generic `channel` name for channel nodes

[Marijn Suijten]

On 2023-04-12 21:27:56, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 22:29:17 +0200
> Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > As discussed in [1] it is more convenient to use a generic `channel`
> > 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].
> > 
> > The same `channel` node name pattern has also been set in
> > iio/adc/adc.yaml, but this generic binding is not inherited as base for
> > qcom,spmi-vadc bindings due to not having any other generic elements in
> > common, besides the node name rule and reg property.
> > 
> > Replace the .* name pattern with the `channel` 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>
> 
> There are various ways we could pick up this patch set...
> a) Binding changes via individual subsystem trees,
> b) All in on go.
> 
> I think it's late to guarantee to land the changes from (a) in the coming merge window
> so if someone else is willing to do (b) then
> 
> Acked-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Otherwise we can do (a) early in next cycle.  Feel free to poke me if we are doing (b)
> and I seem to have forgotten to pick up this patch!

Thanks!  I hope we don't get many conflicts (+ new bindings adhering to
the old(er) formats) otherwise I'll resend if we do (a).  Around what
time would be good, rc2?

[..]

- Marijn