From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EB00ECDE43 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2018 14:17:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FFF720869 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2018 14:17:09 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="B6AjJ7+c" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 3FFF720869 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727819AbeJUWbi (ORCPT ); Sun, 21 Oct 2018 18:31:38 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:48316 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727266AbeJUWbh (ORCPT ); Sun, 21 Oct 2018 18:31:37 -0400 Received: from archlinux (unknown [176.12.107.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 46DE520836; Sun, 21 Oct 2018 14:17:04 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1540131427; bh=VdAnSpBAuSVaklLV76A2wfF5dJjRzjPM8aZlesEKyhA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=B6AjJ7+ckHzTKoCStwjTkglyXc/YBvkj5nEiCB6iIGC5b4kUOmD5G1vP5ZyNcPqOy nksk8jywVHjx6JKOWF/75Ud/4yyPzJom0khDjiOjfjtfdWUY4aU9K6Gw+QJbnYJPDI aQpZZ3yQX7CUJ0q6/7P/8L2K6oOrPCYMyELVpwhQ= Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 15:17:01 +0100 From: Jonathan Cameron To: Matthias Kaehlcke Cc: Rob Herring , Andy Gross , David Brown , Mark Rutland , Hartmut Knaack , Lars-Peter Clausen , Peter Meerwald-Stadler , linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-soc@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Douglas Anderson Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] dt-bindings: iio: vadc: Update example to include unit address for node 'usb-id-nopull' Message-ID: <20181021151701.7b9daa41@archlinux> In-Reply-To: <20181018194010.GV22824@google.com> References: <20181004001432.21218-1-mka@chromium.org> <20181004001432.21218-2-mka@chromium.org> <20181005204743.GA17135@bogus> <20181012171523.GQ22824@google.com> <20181018194010.GV22824@google.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.1 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 12:40:10 -0700 Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: > On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 10:15:23AM -0700, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 03:47:43PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 05:14:31PM -0700, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: > > > > The node has a reg property, therefore its name should include a unit > > > > address. > > > > > > > > Also change the name from 'usb_id_nopull' to 'usb-id-nopull' to follow > > > > DT conventions. > > > > > > This is ADC channels? If so, then DT convention would really be > > > "adc@...". > > > > Is it really? A grep for 'adc@' in arch/${ARCH}/boot/dts yields > > mostly ADC controller not channel nodes. > > > > I'm totally fine with changing the name to 'adc@...' if that's the > > preference/convention, just want to reconfirm since the actual use is > > a bit ambiguous. > > Could we please reach a conclusion on this? > > Summarizing the options on the table so far are: > > 1. usb-id-nopull@VADC_LR_MUX10_USB_ID > 2. usb-id-nopull@57 > 3. adc@VADC_LR_MUX10_USB_ID > 4. adc@57 > > My personal preference goes to something @ > since the unit address doesn't just resolve to an ADC channel number > but also includes configuation information. A literal like '57' > conveys less information than the define, it's easier to introduce > errors and these errors are harder to spot. I agree that to my mind this is the most sensible option. > > If 'adc@...' really was the convention (or should be) I'd be clearly > in favor of following it. As mentioned above, in practice the use of > the 'adc@...' node name seems to be more prevalent for ADC controllers > than channels, so I'm more inclined towards 'usb-id-nopull@...' or > similar. > > All that said, these are just my preferences for the reasons outlined > above, if DT maintainers really want it to be 'adc@57' or some > variation of that, I'm fine with that too. Please let me know and we > can move forward with this trivial series. Rob, what's your view on this? Thanks, Jonathan > > Thanks > > Matthias