Document value of 16 for pre-scaling, already used in DTS and supported
by the Linux driver since long time:

  sm7225-fairphone-fp4.dtb: adc@3100: channel@8:qcom,pre-scaling: 'oneOf' conditional failed, one must be fixed:
    10 was expected
    16 is not one of [1, 3, 4, 6, 20, 8, 10]
    81 was expected

Fixes: e13d757279bb ("iio: adc: Add QCOM SPMI PMIC5 ADC driver")
Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/qcom,spmi-vadc.yaml | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/qcom,spmi-vadc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/qcom,spmi-vadc.yaml
index f30114424b92..42077ca65747 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/qcom,spmi-vadc.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/qcom,spmi-vadc.yaml
@@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ patternProperties:
         oneOf:
           - items:
               - const: 1
-              - enum: [ 1, 3, 4, 6, 20, 8, 10 ]
+              - enum: [ 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 16, 20 ]
           - items:
               - const: 10
               - const: 81
-- 
2.34.1

On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 14:31:42 +0200
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:

> Document value of 16 for pre-scaling, already used in DTS and supported
> by the Linux driver since long time:
> 
>   sm7225-fairphone-fp4.dtb: adc@3100: channel@8:qcom,pre-scaling: 'oneOf' conditional failed, one must be fixed:
>     10 was expected
>     16 is not one of [1, 3, 4, 6, 20, 8, 10]
>     81 was expected
> 
> Fixes: e13d757279bb ("iio: adc: Add QCOM SPMI PMIC5 ADC driver")
> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>

I'm carrying an identical patch (though without the reordering) from Luca Weiss.
I thought as the whole series was very late in the cycle that it was unlikely
to be necessary to rush this in.

https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230414-pmi632-v1-5-fe94dc414832@z3ntu.xyz/

I see that patch is for the fairphone-fp3 adn this report is the fairphone-fp4.
Is that the reason this is a fix?

I'm also I'd like someone from driver side to confirm the drier supports this.
From a quick glance I'm not seeing 16 in what I think might be the related table.
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/iio/adc/qcom-spmi-vadc.c#L126

Jonathan

> ---
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/qcom,spmi-vadc.yaml | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/qcom,spmi-vadc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/qcom,spmi-vadc.yaml
> index f30114424b92..42077ca65747 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/qcom,spmi-vadc.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/qcom,spmi-vadc.yaml
> @@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ patternProperties:
>          oneOf:
>            - items:
>                - const: 1
> -              - enum: [ 1, 3, 4, 6, 20, 8, 10 ]
> +              - enum: [ 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 16, 20 ]
>            - items:
>                - const: 10
>                - const: 81

On 16/04/2023 15:10, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 14:31:42 +0200
> Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
> 
>> Document value of 16 for pre-scaling, already used in DTS and supported
>> by the Linux driver since long time:
>>
>>   sm7225-fairphone-fp4.dtb: adc@3100: channel@8:qcom,pre-scaling: 'oneOf' conditional failed, one must be fixed:
>>     10 was expected
>>     16 is not one of [1, 3, 4, 6, 20, 8, 10]
>>     81 was expected
>>
>> Fixes: e13d757279bb ("iio: adc: Add QCOM SPMI PMIC5 ADC driver")
>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
> 
> I'm carrying an identical patch (though without the reordering) from Luca Weiss.
> I thought as the whole series was very late in the cycle that it was unlikely
> to be necessary to rush this in.
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230414-pmi632-v1-5-fe94dc414832@z3ntu.xyz/
> 
> I see that patch is for the fairphone-fp3 adn this report is the fairphone-fp4.
> Is that the reason this is a fix?

Oh, I missed it. It's just something new and not yet in next maybe, so
thus I missed the fix.

Ignore this patch then, please.

Best regards,
Krzysztof