Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] dt-bindings: iio: adc: Add support for QCOM PMIC5 Gen3 ADC

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 21/02/2024 06:36, Jishnu Prakash wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof,
> 
> On 2/17/2024 7:43 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 16/02/2024 11:39, Jishnu Prakash wrote:
>>> Hi Krzysztof,
>>>
>>> On 1/4/2024 1:48 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 31/12/2023 18:12, Jishnu Prakash wrote:
>>>>> For the PMIC5-Gen3 type PMICs, ADC peripheral is present in HW for the
>>>>> following PMICs: PMK8550, PM8550, PM8550B and PM8550VX PMICs.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is similar to PMIC5-Gen2, with SW communication to ADCs on all PMICs
>>>>> going through PBS(Programmable Boot Sequence) firmware through a single
>>>>> register interface. This interface is implemented on an SDAM (Shared
>>>>> Direct Access Memory) peripheral on the master PMIC PMK8550 rather
>>>>> than a dedicated ADC peripheral.
>>>>>
>>>>> Add documentation for PMIC5 Gen3 ADC and macro definitions for ADC
>>>>> channels and virtual channels (combination of ADC channel number and
>>>>> PMIC SID number) per PMIC, to be used by clients of this device.
>>>>>
>>>>> Changes since v2:
>>>>> - Moved ADC5 Gen3 documentation into a separate new file.
>>>> Changelog goes under ---.
>>>>
>>>> Why did you do this? What is the rationale? Sorry, this patchset goes
>>>> nowhere.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'll elaborate this more in the next patchset. There are two main
>>> reasons for adding this documentation in a new file:
>>
>> This was more than a month ago? You reply to my comment with 1.5 months
>> delay?
>>
>> Sorry, I am not in the context and I am not going back to it. I have
>> many other emails where my questions are addressed faster than 1.5 months.
>>
>> The patch is not even in my mailbox, long gone.
>> Why you are making it so difficult for reviewers?
>>
>> You will get answers like I am not in context, sorry. Next time don't
>> respond after 1.5 months.
>>
> 
> You're right - I'll do my best to get back to review comments in a 
> reasonable time frame.
> 
>>
>>>
>>> 1.This device is not exactly like the existing QCOM VADC drivers as it
>>> now combines VADC functionality (reading ADC channel on client request)
>>> with ADC_TM functionality (thermal threshold monitoring).
>>
>> Does no explain touching bindings. Your drivers don't matter for bindings.
>>
>>>
>>> 2.Adding this device's bindings in the existing qcom,spmi-vadc.yaml file
>>
>> No rationale was provided in commit msg.
>>
>>> is not possible as it would require updating some of the existing
>>> top-level constraints. (for the older devices in that file, "reg" and
>>> "interrupts" can have at most one item, while this device can have more
>>> than one item under these properties.)
>>
> 
>> How is this a problem?
> 
> In qcom,spmi-vadc.yaml, we have the following top-level constraints for 
> the "reg" and "interrupts" properties:
> 
>    reg:
>      maxItems: 1
> 
>    interrupts:
>      maxItems: 1
> 
> For the ADC5 Gen3 device being added now, these constraints cannot be 
> followed always, as there may be more than one peripheral under one 
> device instance, each with a corresponding interrupt. For example, the 
> above properties could be like this for a ADC5 Gen3 device:
> 
>      reg = <0x9000>, <0x9100>;
>      interrupts = <0x0 0x90 0x1 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>,
>                   <0x0 0x91 0x1 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>;
> 
> 
> I could not overwrite the top-level constraints for the new device 
> "qcom,spmi-adc5-gen3" alone in qcom,spmi-vadc.yaml, so I tried to remove 
> the constraints from the top level and add them back conditionally for 
> all the device types separately, but you told me not to remove them 
> (full message: 
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iio/832053f4-bd5d-4e58-81bb-1a8188e7f364@xxxxxxxxxx/)

Because top-level widest constraints must stay, but it is not a problem.
Most of the multi-device bindings work like this. Dozen of Qualcomm. Why
you cannot do this the same way we do for all Qualcomm devices?

> 
> Since these constraints cannot be modified for a specific new device or 

???

> removed, I think the only way to accommodate this new device is to add 
> it in its own new file.
> 
> Is this a sufficient justification for adding this documentation in a 
> new file or do you have any other suggestions?

I already gave you the suggestions and you ignored them. Do like we are
doing for all other drivers. Don't re-invent stuff. Either this fits to
existing schema or come with common schema (and then provide rationale
why it does not fit to existing one).

Best regards,
Krzysztof