From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E232C3D0C03; Sat, 16 May 2026 10:40:34 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778928035; cv=none; b=ee4WaVvQ01lUdzdZSLA/C7oOxdDIcg2iVngAl3HIKherThS10CKC2MxySPUbf20yHf4m4sVawwr+tu4I9wdrRHEkKVYlPNCCbX8x/LfyFctT6ENQfYX61FZ6tJNT5RSnMmfFk5kR/1JUfIRz81LXR3ME4CWD2j2Aa+f8KQoY6qw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778928035; c=relaxed/simple; bh=fXmnEYBLoOJ7UNNv2B4c5j0+3yxz9xeHcARFFB09Kqs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=VZpfEgnAYUyL29APXQB/LeZQCjrVmc3gQbm2csO348BQZLoFTwkTgxW5Cm1GoubjbcHztgOIfCxUUV09gQcCKD2NQGJywBz4WMLCBBKzZCf0eCnJazwau6afxWwXF1ZFyJCej+TcxnyJQZBcDwlnuWg8vMTl1AYQZ8+QtXS7bVU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=OlDgRiPT; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="OlDgRiPT" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9FA58C19425; Sat, 16 May 2026 10:40:27 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1778928034; bh=fXmnEYBLoOJ7UNNv2B4c5j0+3yxz9xeHcARFFB09Kqs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=OlDgRiPTZ/EHN17s3jfhKd0Gd1EStbmTUQtdTnIfJxGt+H4iDVDSkPIwGI1VFRbF/ YkYrWlvPMwvt/UaCU3i/e5W56B8C9cUeoypyB1oIs2vj1wG39pGVCneGEDX9ACLDPW G5oOqKX+yFHQN+2Kc8ZE2Na/Lq2UxaLDaX1JcKULAouGm0Sa5Gjh2OQmPooFd/46I4 XLUIXDeZgkZhEQDV0xOkIeu9RCegWcy0uOE9hIm8mhMquuooNFqmclAnfLLQuutz5e OgNlH8Jnjvwe4rKzLuy/zbGlBcUe6vulRvTPLj3V7K2wF78eXvLyY6y3oHUlSXkx9J kDarKgSqqJe9g== Date: Sat, 16 May 2026 11:40:22 +0100 From: Jonathan Cameron To: Rodrigo Alencar <455.rodrigo.alencar@gmail.com> Cc: Rodrigo Alencar via B4 Relay , rodrigo.alencar@analog.com, linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org, Lars-Peter Clausen , Michael Hennerich , David Lechner , Andy Shevchenko , Rob Herring , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Conor Dooley , Philipp Zabel , Jonathan Corbet , Shuah Khan , Kees Cook , "Gustavo A. R. Silva" Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v4 01/10] dt-bindings: iio: frequency: add ad9910 Message-ID: <20260516114022.58949a06@jic23-huawei> In-Reply-To: References: <20260508-ad9910-iio-driver-v4-0-d26bfd20ee3d@analog.com> <20260508-ad9910-iio-driver-v4-1-d26bfd20ee3d@analog.com> <20260512193129.777d62a8@jic23-huawei> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.4.0 (GTK 3.24.52; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 13 May 2026 16:09:24 +0100 Rodrigo Alencar <455.rodrigo.alencar@gmail.com> wrote: > On 26/05/12 07:31PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > On Fri, 08 May 2026 18:00:17 +0100 > > Rodrigo Alencar via B4 Relay wrote: > > > > > From: Rodrigo Alencar > > > > > > DT-bindings for AD9910, a 1 GSPS DDS with 14-bit DAC. It includes > > > configurations for clocks, DAC current, reset and basic GPIO control. > > > > I think this is getting close enough now that for next version you should > > drop the RFC (which is probably gating DT binding folk giving it > > a detailed review!) > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Alencar > > > > > + > > > + adi,dac-output-current-microamp: > > > + minimum: 8640 > > > + maximum: 31590 > > > + default: 20070 > > > + description: > > > + DAC full-scale output current in microamps. > > > + > > Can we use generic dac.yaml defined output-range-microamp? The base will be 0 always but > > that shouldn't matter. > > > > would that be fine even if we do not have those child channel nodes in the device-tree node? > I think I'd rather we generalized to cover the 'one shared value' case rather then went with a vendor specific binding. Jonathan