Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: iio: adc: ti,ads1015: Add label property

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On Sat, Sep 05, 2026 at 02:56:12AM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Sep 2026 10:30:01 -0500
> David Lechner <dlechner@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On 9/3/26 10:19 AM, Flaviu Nistor wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2026 at 9:31 PM, David Lechner wrote:  
> > >> On 9/2/26 12:22 PM, Flaviu Nistor wrote:  
> > >>> Add support for an optional label property per channel similar to other adc
> > >>> chips. This allows assigning distinct names for each channel which can
> > >>> match the schematic signal name.
> > >>>
> > >>> Signed-off-by: Flaviu Nistor <flaviu.nistor@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >>> ---
> > >>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/ti,ads1015.yaml | 6 ++++++
> > >>>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> > >>>
> > >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/ti,ads1015.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/ti,ads1015.yaml
> > >>> index 718f633c6e04..777a75c21d7f 100644
> > >>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/ti,ads1015.yaml
> > >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/ti,ads1015.yaml
> > >>> @@ -66,6 +66,11 @@ patternProperties:
> > >>>            - minimum: 0
> > >>>              maximum: 7
> > >>>  
> > >>> +      label:
> > >>> +        $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/string
> > >>> +        description:
> > >>> +          A descriptive name for this channel, like "vcc_ram" or "CH3".
> > >>> +  
> > >>
> > >> Apparently this chip has quite old dt-bindings. Normally, we would have
> > >> included adc.yaml to get this and other channel properties.
> 
> Quite a lot of bindings predate that generalization work :(
> 
> > >>
> > >> And we would have used diff-channels and single-channel from that to
> > >> describe which pins are associated with which channel rather than having
> > >> a magic number for reg. And the ti,datarate looks suspicious as sampling
> > >> frequency is usually we control at runtime.
> > >>
> > >> Anyway, none of that is really relevant to this patch. We'll see what
> > >> Jonathan says about using adc.yaml here vs. adding a label property.
> 
> Given it's only a single property and label is pretty universal
> I'm fine with just adding it here without the reference to adc.yaml.
> 
> DT binding reviewers may disagree however!

Yeah, I see how adc.yaml could be used here, but then it should disallow
"diff-channels" to be explicit, that old "reg" style is used, so maybye
not worth the effort.

Best regards,
Krzysztof