From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ludovic.Desroches@atmel.com (Desroches, Ludovic) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 17:46:03 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v2 2/4] iio: at91: Use different prescal, startup mask in MR for different IP In-Reply-To: <5215DF7C.2020909@atmel.com> References: <1376219071-29946-1-git-send-email-josh.wu@atmel.com> <1376219071-29946-3-git-send-email-josh.wu@atmel.com> <20130815192044.GD12162@lukather> <5215DF2C.3050502@atmel.com> <5215DF7C.2020909@atmel.com> Message-ID: <20130823154603.GA7468@ludovic.desroches@atmel.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi, On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 05:53:00PM +0800, Josh Wu wrote: > Add Ludovic in the loop. > > On 8/22/2013 5:51 PM, Josh Wu wrote: > >Hi, Maxime > > > >On 8/16/2013 3:20 AM, Maxime Ripard wrote: > >>Hi Josh, > >> > >>On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 07:04:29PM +0800, Josh Wu wrote: > >>>For at91 boards, there are different IPs for adc. Different IPs has > >>>different STARTUP & PRESCAL mask in ADC_MR. > >>> > >>>This patch introduce the multiple compatible string for those > >>>different IPs. > >>> > >>>Signed-off-by: Josh Wu > >>Overall it looks like the right ways, but I think we can take it a step > >>further. > >> > >>I'd drop at least the atmel,adc-drdy-mask, atmel,adc-num-channels, > >>atmel,adc-status-register, atmel,adc-trigger-register properties (and > >>probably the triggers as well description as well). > > > >yeah, right. Currently I want to drop following: > > > >atmel,adc-drdy-mask, atmel,adc-status-register, > >atmel,adc-trigger-register, atmel,adc-channel-base > > > >For the adc-num-channels, I'd like to leave it in dt parameters. > >It is a description for an adc capablity. About this parameter, I'll remove it too from the dt bindings. To set it you need to have a look to the datasheet and to copy a constant value into the dt. From my point of view, it means than this parameter should be managed by the driver and by the dt. On the other side since there are some dynamic allocation depending on this parameter maybe it makes sense to keep it in the dt. If the user wants to use only 2 channels why doing allocation for max channel number. By the way, this case is only valid if he uses the two first channels. > > > >For the triggers, I am not decided. An obvious benifit to remove > >trigger in dt will save many lines of code. > > > >> > >>Maxime > >> > > > >Best Regards, > >Josh Wu > Since we are talking about reworking this binding I was thinking about resolution stuff. Filling atmel,adc-res is also copying constant value from the device datasheet, so if I was consistent I would say it has to be removed too. But I am not consistent! I mean by doing this the only thing the user will have to fill is the resolution value. He can't set the value he wants, there are only two choices. By keeping it into the dt then he will immediately see the choices he has. Regards Ludovic