[PATCH v3] dt-bindings: iio: adc: Convert xilinx-xadc bindings to YAML schema

[Rob Herring]

On Tue, May 12, 2026 at 8:58 AM David Lechner <dlechner at baylibre.com> wrote:
>
> On 5/12/26 7:14 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 11:24 AM David Lechner <dlechner at baylibre.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 5/11/26 11:15 AM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 10 May 2026 08:01:36 -0400
> >>> Pramod Maurya <pramod.nexgen at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Convert the Xilinx XADC and UltraScale System Monitor device tree binding
> >>>> from the legacy plain-text format to a YAML schema, enabling automated
> >>>> validation with dt-schema.
> >>>>
> >>>> The new binding covers the same hardware and compatible strings:
> >>>>   - xlnx,zynq-xadc-1.00.a (ZYNQ hardmacro)
> >>>>   - xlnx,axi-xadc-1.00.a  (AXI softmacro)
> >>>>   - xlnx,system-management-wiz-1.3 (UltraScale System Management Wizard)
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Pramod Maurya <pramod.nexgen at gmail.com>
> >>> Hi Pramod,
> >>>
> >>> Something went wrong with your sending of v3. I have two versions sent
> >>> half a day apart and no idea how they are related.
> >>>
> >>> Anyhow one of them got feedback from Rob's bot so I'll assume we are
> >>> getting a v4 and wait for that.
> >>>
> >>> Jonathan
> >>
> >> I think Rob will have to fix the bot to make an exception for the
> >> legacy bindings. This should have been called out in the commit message
> >> as requested in a previous revision.
> >
> > The bot is not the problem. It just runs validation. The schemas will
> > have to either drop this check (comma's in nodenames) or exclude just
> > this property.
> >
> >
> > Rob
>
> Even though this is an existing text-based schema that has been around
> for 12 years with this name already? Changing it could be a breaking
> change to existing users. Although there aren't any in any .dts in the
> kernel source.

I'm absolutely not suggesting changing the node name.

The common schemas globally disallow commas in nodenames. We can relax
that and allow commas in any nodename. That check is largely from
QCom's amazingly consistent use of 'qcom' prefix in nodenames. We've
finally beat that practice out of them. So maybe it's not needed
anymore.

The other approach is to exclude this nodename and any other we have
to keep. I don't like dtschema having to know about some random name,
but we already have that in a few cases and I don't expect that list
to be too long given this is the first case we've seen.

Rob