[PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: iio: adc: Add GPADC for Allwinner A523
Andre Przywara
andre.przywara at arm.com
Mon May 11 09:02:16 PDT 2026
Hi Michal,
thanks for adding this!
On 5/10/26 14:57, Michal Piekos wrote:
> Add support for the GPADC for the Allwinner A523. It differs from the
> D1/T113s/R329/T507 by having two clocks.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michal Piekos <michal.piekos at mmpsystems.pl>
> ---
> .../iio/adc/allwinner,sun20i-d1-gpadc.yaml | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/allwinner,sun20i-d1-gpadc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/allwinner,sun20i-d1-gpadc.yaml
> index da605a051b94..89da96cd705f 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/allwinner,sun20i-d1-gpadc.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/allwinner,sun20i-d1-gpadc.yaml
> @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ properties:
> - items:
> - enum:
> - allwinner,sun50i-h616-gpadc
> + - allwinner,sun55i-a523-gpadc
> - const: allwinner,sun20i-d1-gpadc
As Jernej already mentioned, the A523 GPADC is not fully compatible,
since it adds another clock. The question to ask is: Can a driver only
knowing about the fallback device handle this new device? For which the
answer here is: No, it misses a clock.
So add just a single entry for the A523 (plus adding it to the driver).
So looking at this I wonder if we should add some property to describe
the number of supported channels, since they are slightly different
between the SoCs:
- The D1 manual mentions 2 channels.
- The T113s manual (same die as the D1?) describes 1 channel only.
- The T507 manual (same die as the H616) reports 4 channels.
- The A733 has 6 channels.
- The A133 has 1 channel, but it's channel 1, not 0.
So all of this is somewhat covered as channels are described as child
nodes, and have a reg property. Ideally non-existing channels just
wouldn't be listed, but I don't know if we want to rely on that.
So I am wondering if we should introduce a limit, or rather a mask (to
cover the A133 oddity)?
Either a DT property (channel-mask, as a single sell representing the
bit mask), or derived in the driver from the compatible string.
The former would avoid introducing different compatible strings just
because of that, though I think this type of property is somewhat
discouraged?
Any thoughts?
>
> "#io-channel-cells":
> @@ -29,7 +30,12 @@ properties:
> const: 0
>
> clocks:
> - maxItems: 1
> + minItems: 1
> + maxItems: 2
> +
> + clock-names:
> + minItems: 1
> + maxItems: 2
>
> interrupts:
> maxItems: 1
> @@ -40,6 +46,35 @@ properties:
> resets:
> maxItems: 1
>
> +allOf:
> + - if:
> + properties:
> + compatible:
> + items:
> + - const: allwinner,sun55i-a523-gpadc
> + - const: allwinner,sun20i-d1-gpadc
> + then:
> + properties:
> + clocks:
> + minItems: 2
> + maxItems: 2
> + items:
> + - description: Bus clock
> + - description: Module clock
I am not a YAML expert, but I think you can drop the min and max
properties, if you just enumerate the cases. Same for the names.
Cheers,
Andre
> + clock-names:
> + minItems: 2
> + maxItems: 2
> + items:
> + - const: bus
> + - const: mod
> + required:
> + - clock-names
> + else:
> + properties:
> + clocks:
> + maxItems: 1
> + clock-names: false
> +
> patternProperties:
> "^channel@[0-9a-f]+$":
> $ref: adc.yaml
>
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list