From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.zeus03.de (zeus03.de [194.117.254.33]) (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 C6D603370FE for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2025 15:14:40 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=194.117.254.33 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1760714082; cv=none; b=dYAKGOfgooblEx9SARhTrIlivrXUJDi1tasZMWUQK/9juoN2oiujJeNfyzl+vNHXO9PdBYBKHkLSrFxZVvzS0Zm0p6V69VQ6/DgjhdUUOhWs1wKSuMLNbbfPcRUSgL10dtsKxMBIvp1HO6VE+Sbdj3gAP+VtRN60IEqOOgyMrx4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1760714082; c=relaxed/simple; bh=p7IYtu7Nv3p1Va76BbrP2fjM79zbzZp0jh60+HNRPDg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=WUzwHqty+BicXi3Y+a7TAIuNSSFpjFAPKgNKNv4b1XM4KFoLJtw812esn7BP9l5DWFlCOF+hZFlnqVRrjpQP2v1yUAu1zAmO3TFDweCzX185EWQ4RBhF4GT4dIJO3Q4/gY9cJjUApUrJwJZJyggmb1dMAONOgKzVfaaTwkaU1eE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=sang-engineering.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sang-engineering.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sang-engineering.com header.i=@sang-engineering.com header.b=aeEPF5Zg; arc=none smtp.client-ip=194.117.254.33 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=sang-engineering.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sang-engineering.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sang-engineering.com header.i=@sang-engineering.com header.b="aeEPF5Zg" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= sang-engineering.com; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=k1; bh=p7IY tu7Nv3p1Va76BbrP2fjM79zbzZp0jh60+HNRPDg=; b=aeEPF5ZgjRxf5ivMgEP6 a96riYOhKW+hG5UdPLqdTcfe5FTjmV3OHJf/2Ai2VKwYSbJR0wC1/D/r8xB5FKy1 GFimrI814BL0MTkU/q5p8zRzfWMG6Fh/yESpyCgDfhMxlF/mSz/Ds6P/J4yWCMPU C8BsAzABRdLNnWBwUNATSxNK7QV1NUB3MoVqJCJqA/+jshpLIV4ExS7o2LGkzWWC rCepcfyhftSIouKjY3EEfHbBetJ0pbMGdjvkFgrOMTXjpe0sUGCFCa12GpnpDxYV 4xWw2HIu1NJLb35qNr9bhseQdJasRiHRPSgoKT4f7btxD0vJSxw1zciG1ENQqpL+ fw== Received: (qmail 79180 invoked from network); 17 Oct 2025 17:14:33 +0200 Received: by mail.zeus03.de with UTF8SMTPSA (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted, authenticated); 17 Oct 2025 17:14:33 +0200 X-UD-Smtp-Session: l3s3148p1@AS3dMFxBjs4gAwDPXwQHAL/S9V79e5yL Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2025 17:14:32 +0200 From: Wolfram Sang To: Herve Codina Cc: Jonathan Cameron , David Lechner , Nuno =?utf-8?B?U8Oh?= , Andy Shevchenko , Rob Herring , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Conor Dooley , Geert Uytterhoeven , Magnus Damm , Liam Girdwood , Mark Brown , linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Pascal Eberhard , Miquel Raynal , Thomas Petazzoni Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] iio: adc: Add support for the Renesas RZ/N1 ADC Message-ID: References: <20251015142816.1274605-1-herve.codina@bootlin.com> <20251015142816.1274605-3-herve.codina@bootlin.com> <20251017170054.7a7a6d5f@bootlin.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="eU16krwebNarsjsY" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20251017170054.7a7a6d5f@bootlin.com> --eU16krwebNarsjsY Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > IMHO, I think the solution you proposed is similar in term of complexity > to the RZN1_ADC_NO_CHANNEL approach. On my side, I would prefer the > RZN1_ADC_NO_CHANNEL approach to keep the decoupling between IIO chan and > ADC core chans. >=20 > That's said, I am still open to move in your direction if you still think > it is more relevant than the RZN1_ADC_NO_CHANNEL approach. Just tell me. Well, in deed, I like "my" approach a tad better, but I am not demanding it. It is your driver and you have reasons to do it like you implemented it - you chose the way, I am fine with both. But maybe add a comment (mention the decoupling) why it was decided this way. --eU16krwebNarsjsY Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEOZGx6rniZ1Gk92RdFA3kzBSgKbYFAmjyXVUACgkQFA3kzBSg KbYeug/+MzLs0kUyOuNPsQ7uDp6nj5Vb9AevnkxgNb/eAHHlOb8lEDyatQmbZExt i2W1xVVBsqr10n7IpC7ygrrEpaM3PiV4i0a37ppAxoac6wFH01OlewpRS1L61t7W c/kPt/7xkdy/emhe5/mGTW4CH3lYK8IkzQtSkxLEdHW4Ku6BGsh/KTjrL05FV1VG M2UG20Wp42YyflxdG/U9NAjYpA2g+8zgDI7txX52GNwkoekEX4/cIk1Z0da/fKTo jGdeSNu1U4VupTEDap5TGafGledZQZPKuOAdSCu2JHhqXhhxkBWUJZRORbX2ztqR VM0o5kCgejDDLhPWijtT2UNTLKf4K36IBQDhjBju7pmfHMypXDCQ+hI6pm46v9+c UhraHkPsBG1z8Qez4MVgtXUPUmCjUjCq3pbIMub/ZY18EzadptQmjvGZfZ+D5Iot xfTMwGhbpzQNqJ1yQyC1djszbaBWp4t9U6eUE2CLyluu9Vgpw/jvPifCnzLOue0T Qi3RES0lAWHw8ttqY8fr04vdAh77Di/z2NNK1cYerlO1E243uPoqru8NWLWkm/OL H+lgDLQUFTrO4T+FiJNsp29p8nMACv6S1XAPx3NZc5i+WrulcLaGbPqOgm+Miny5 qHybCE5xUm+c5tkKc+5jzG6akgft5TEHDkgmRCaVtcE/CpbgV0g= =eQ6v -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --eU16krwebNarsjsY--