From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755520Ab1JQLNZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Oct 2011 07:13:25 -0400 Received: from ppsw-51.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.151]:44349 "EHLO ppsw-51.csi.cam.ac.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752509Ab1JQLNY (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Oct 2011 07:13:24 -0400 X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found X-Cam-SpamDetails: not scanned X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/ Message-ID: <4E9C0DD7.7080105@cam.ac.uk> Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 12:13:27 +0100 From: Jonathan Cameron User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20111003 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Brown CC: Linus Walleij , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, zdevai@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging:iio:proof of concept in kernel interface. References: <1318333383-17663-1-git-send-email-jic23@cam.ac.uk> <1318333383-17663-2-git-send-email-jic23@cam.ac.uk> <20111013143224.GO1098@sirena.org.uk> <4E96F9AC.9000001@cam.ac.uk> <20111013204410.GA17160@sirena.org.uk> <4E985C60.9020308@cam.ac.uk> <4E9BF8D9.8030301@cam.ac.uk> <20111017101959.GC3042@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <4E9C0423.5010909@cam.ac.uk> <20111017104642.GD3042@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> In-Reply-To: <20111017104642.GD3042@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4a1pre Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 10/17/11 11:46, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 11:32:03AM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > >> Initially I'd be tempted to only support numbered channels (on adc side). >> Later we can add the named option - iff it has real use cases. > > I think the PMIC case is a real one, assigning numbers people need to > use to find things is doesn't really reflect actual usage. > Just to make sure I'm understanding you correctly could you give an example part. The supplies one we explicitly handle anyway so I'm happy with that one, I just want to confirm that this is what you are talking about. Anyhow, should get to code this afternoon and always easier to discuss actual code!