On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 1:00 PM Stephen Boyd [off-list ref] wrote:

Quoting Jonathan Cameron (2020-08-01 08:06:39)

quoted

On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 10:48:38 -0600
Daniel Campello [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/proximity/semtech,sx9310.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/proximity/semtech,sx9310.yaml
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000000..5739074d3592fe
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/proximity/semtech,sx9310.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@

[...]

quoted

quoted

+
+  "#io-channel-cells":
+    const: 1
+
+required:
+  - compatible
+  - reg
+  - "#io-channel-cells"

Missed this in earlier review (only noticed when I saw whilst santity
checking earlier versions.

Fairly sure we should only need #io-channel-cells if we have
a consumer of a channel somewhere else in DT.  So it's not
required as far as I can see.

This is mostly a decision for Rob to make, but I would make it required
because the device is always an io channel provider. It may be that it
isn't providing anything in the DT to something else in the DT but it is
providing this information somewhere so always having to spell that out
is simple and doesn't hurt.

I agree. If the user is split in a board file or overlay, we don't
want to have to be adding it to the provider at that time.

Rob