RE: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: hwmon: max31827: use supply pin name

[Miclaus, Antoniu]

> On Sat, Sep 23, 2023 at 02:19:45PM +0000, Miclaus, Antoniu wrote:
> >
> >
> > > On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 05:20:03PM +0300, Antoniu Miclaus wrote:
> > > > The actual hardware pin name for the supply of max31827 is vdd.
> > > > Update the dt-binding to reflect the hardware properties accordingly.
> > >
> > > Changing this breaks the ABI. I see the old one wasn't used by the
> > > driver, but that's just one driver potentially. You need some
> > > justification here why it's okay to break the ABI.
> > >
> > As I mentioned also in the commit description, the supply should match the
> > actual hardware pin name. Otherwise it might create confusion. Usually
> vref
> > refers to an external voltage reference pin used for ADC/DACs which is not
> > exactly the case for this part, taking into account that there is no
> "reference"
> > word mentioned in the datasheet at all. VREF and VDD are usually separate
> > hardware pins. There is a hint indeed in the dts example that the vref-
> supply
> > might be referenced to a vdd regulator node, but from my point of view
> > that is not enough. Moreover the current vref-supply is not handled at all in
> > the driver, it is only mentioned in the dt-binding (That's why I added a
> second
> > patch in the series handling the supply).
> >
> > If the justification is not enough to apply this change, then I can keep only
> the
> > second patch, which handles the regulator in the driver and use the  old
> `vref`
> > naming which currently appears only in the dt-binding.
> >
> 
> That would have been a good argument when the property was introduced,
> but if
> there are any systems with existing bindings out there they will use the old
> name and fail after this change is applied.
> 
> I don't thnk it is mandated that every system in the world would publish their
> devicetree bindings in the kernel. That would not scale. So any argument
> along
> the line of "this binding is not used" is not really a valid argument.
> 
> Guenter
Will keep then only the second patch which targets the driver.
Thanks for the feedback!