Re: [PATCH v11 1/2] dt-bindings: adc: add AD7173

Jonathan Cameron
2024-01-17T16:37:37Z

On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 14:43:21 +0200
Ceclan Dumitru <mitrutzceclan@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 1/16/24 18:30, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 15:53:39 -0600
> > David Lechner <dlechner@baylibre.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 4:48 AM Dumitru Ceclan <mitrutzceclan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >> Sorry for the late reply as I see this has been applied already but...
> > We have plenty of time. Rather than dropping the ad7173 from my tree,
> > I'd prefer to see additional patches on top to tidy up whatever
> > makes sense from David's feedback.
> >
> Alright then.
>
> ...
>
> >>
> >> As discussed in v8 [1] it is not clear what signal this is. Based on
> >> that discussion, I'm assuming the RDY signal, but how would bindings
> >> consumers know that without a description since it is not the only
> >> digital output signal of the chip? And why the ERROR signal was
> >> omitted here was never addressed AFAICT.
> >>
> >> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iio/20231217135007.3e5d959a@jic23-huawei/
> >
> > I'd forgotten about that. Adding interrupt-names would be the easiest
> > way to resolve this.
> >
>
> I'll add this, but my curiosity for the long run is: How should
> differences between what bindings include and what drivers support
> should be managed and documented?

Drivers almost always support a subset of functionality of the device.
This isn't much different. The driver 'should' use interrupt-names
but it doesn't need to support all the things that the binding says should
be in there.

Sometimes we document things in a driver, but there isn't any obligation to
do so and those docs are often out of date.

>
> ...
>
> >>> +
> >>> + refin-supply:
> >>> + description: external reference supply, can be used as reference for conversion.
> >>
> >> If I'm understanding correctly, this represents both voltage inputs
> >> REF+ and REF-, correct? The datasheet says "Reference Input Negative
> >> Terminal. REF− can span from AVSS to AVDD1 − 1 V". It seems like they
> >> should be separate supplies in case REF- is non-zero. Otherwise, how
> >> can we know what voltage it is? (same comment applies to refin2.)
> >
> > Agreed, in this case these are directly used as references (we recently
> > had another driver that could take a wide range of negative and positive
> > inputs but in that case an internal reference was generated that didn't
> > made it not matter exactly what was being supplied. Not true here though!
> >
> Wouldn't it be alright to specify that the voltage specified here should
> be the actual difference (REF+)-(REF-)?

How do you establish the offset to apply to single ended channels if you don't
know the value of REF- (relative to local ground)?

So no - as the device supports single ended channels the difference isn't
enough information. It would probably be fine to do as you say if it
were a device with only differential channels where all that matters is
the scaling.

>
> ...
>
> >>> +required:
> >>> + - compatible
> >>> + - reg
> >>> + - interrupts
> >>
> >> Why are interrupts required? What if the pin is not connected?
> >>
> > Ah. I clearly failed to review this one closely enough.
> >
> > Absolutely agree that interrupts should never be required.
> > No need for the driver to work if they aren't, but the binding
> > shouldn't require them!
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
>
> To make sure that I understand, the driver will not probe without
> interrupts, but it is alright to make then optional in the bindings?

Yes - it is fine for a driver to only support a subset of functionality
and fail to probe if that subset isn't what the hardware enables.

>
> This is in the case that someone will want to use this binding and
> implement reading with polling?

Yes.

J