From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mo3.mail-out.ovh.net ([178.32.228.3]:59666 "EHLO mo3.mail-out.ovh.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751790Ab2LVRXO (ORCPT ); Sat, 22 Dec 2012 12:23:14 -0500 Received: from mail417.ha.ovh.net (b6.ovh.net [213.186.33.56]) by mo3.mail-out.ovh.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 6DCEAFF9122 for ; Sat, 22 Dec 2012 18:35:37 +0100 (CET) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2012 18:21:33 +0100 From: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD To: Maxime Ripard Cc: "ludovic.desroches" , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, Nicolas Ferre Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] ARM: AT91: IIO: add low and high res support for adc Message-ID: <20121222172133.GT23971@game.jcrosoft.org> References: <20121219183236.GP23971@game.jcrosoft.org> <1355942232-26251-1-git-send-email-plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> <50D2EBA1.4050305@free-electrons.com> <50D2EDE6.3090706@atmel.com> <50D3340F.3090209@free-electrons.com> <50D33940.4000607@atmel.com> <50D426C1.5050807@free-electrons.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 In-Reply-To: <50D426C1.5050807@free-electrons.com> Sender: linux-iio-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-iio@vger.kernel.org On 10:07 Fri 21 Dec , Maxime Ripard wrote: > Le 20/12/2012 17:13, ludovic.desroches a écrit : > > On 12/20/2012 04:51 PM, Maxime Ripard wrote: > >> Hi Ludovic, > >> > >> Le 20/12/2012 11:52, ludovic.desroches a écrit : > >>>> I'm wondering, why are you using such a complex dt parsing code, and > >>>> bindings, when you only requires a boolean to switch between 8 and 10 > >>>> bits mode (which seem to be the only thing you support)? > >>> > >>> We will have a 10 and 12 bits mode on future ADCs and I would like to > >>> have something which could manage more than two resolutions if it > >>> happens one day. > >> > >> I see your point. I'm not fond at all of the existing bindings for the > >> driver (putting things like registers offset in the dt is a non-sense to > >> me, but hey...), so I'd like to still keep it as simple and non-bloated > >> as possible, but it's true that in the current situation, we probably > >> have no other choice. > >> > > > > I have the same feeling than you about ADC bindings, I think that there > > are too many parameters exhibited. Moreover, most of them are chip > > relative. > > > > I have not found other ways to deal with it properly. I would like to > > have them hidden into the driver (depending on the compatible string) > > but it will be a mess if we split parameters into dt and driver. > > I'm glad we feel the same way :) I'm not I fee; exactly this opposte way I do want to toucht the kernel code to add new soc so no I like this binding Best Regards, J. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: plagnioj@jcrosoft.com (Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2012 18:21:33 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 1/3] ARM: AT91: IIO: add low and high res support for adc In-Reply-To: <50D426C1.5050807@free-electrons.com> References: <20121219183236.GP23971@game.jcrosoft.org> <1355942232-26251-1-git-send-email-plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> <50D2EBA1.4050305@free-electrons.com> <50D2EDE6.3090706@atmel.com> <50D3340F.3090209@free-electrons.com> <50D33940.4000607@atmel.com> <50D426C1.5050807@free-electrons.com> Message-ID: <20121222172133.GT23971@game.jcrosoft.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 10:07 Fri 21 Dec , Maxime Ripard wrote: > Le 20/12/2012 17:13, ludovic.desroches a ?crit : > > On 12/20/2012 04:51 PM, Maxime Ripard wrote: > >> Hi Ludovic, > >> > >> Le 20/12/2012 11:52, ludovic.desroches a ?crit : > >>>> I'm wondering, why are you using such a complex dt parsing code, and > >>>> bindings, when you only requires a boolean to switch between 8 and 10 > >>>> bits mode (which seem to be the only thing you support)? > >>> > >>> We will have a 10 and 12 bits mode on future ADCs and I would like to > >>> have something which could manage more than two resolutions if it > >>> happens one day. > >> > >> I see your point. I'm not fond at all of the existing bindings for the > >> driver (putting things like registers offset in the dt is a non-sense to > >> me, but hey...), so I'd like to still keep it as simple and non-bloated > >> as possible, but it's true that in the current situation, we probably > >> have no other choice. > >> > > > > I have the same feeling than you about ADC bindings, I think that there > > are too many parameters exhibited. Moreover, most of them are chip > > relative. > > > > I have not found other ways to deal with it properly. I would like to > > have them hidden into the driver (depending on the compatible string) > > but it will be a mess if we split parameters into dt and driver. > > I'm glad we feel the same way :) I'm not I fee; exactly this opposte way I do want to toucht the kernel code to add new soc so no I like this binding Best Regards, J.