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

[David Lechner]

On 5/12/26 2:42 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
> 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

Got it. So when I said "fix the bot" earlier, I should have said
"fix dtschema". We went through this before with adi,channels, but
I didn't remember exactly what you did.

I created a pull request for dt-schema [1] for this since it was
easier than trying to explain it for someone else to do.

[1]: https://github.com/devicetree-org/dt-schema/pull/195