linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH/RFC v8 11/14] DT: Add documentation for the mfd Maxim max77693

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 01 Dec 2014 14:43:51 +0100
From:	Jacek Anaszewski <j.anaszewski@...sung.com>
To:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc:	linux-leds@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kyungmin.park@...sung.com,
	b.zolnierkie@...sung.com, cooloney@...il.com, rpurdie@...ys.net,
	sakari.ailus@....fi, s.nawrocki@...sung.com,
	Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@...sung.com>,
	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
	SangYoung Son <hello.son@...sung.com>,
	Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC v8 11/14] DT: Add documentation for the mfd Maxim
 max77693

Hi Pavel,

On 12/01/2014 02:02 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
>>> Is this one needed? Just ommit child note if it is not there.
>>
>> It is needed because you can have one led connected two both
>> outputs. This allows to describe such a design.
>
> Ok.
>
>>>> +- maxim,trigger-type : Array of trigger types in order: flash, torch
>>>> +	Possible trigger types:
>>>> +		0 - Rising edge of the signal triggers the flash/torch,
>>>> +		1 - Signal level controls duration of the flash/torch.
>>>> +- maxim,trigger : Array of flags indicating which trigger can activate given led
>>>> +	in order: fled1, fled2
>>>> +	Possible flag values (can be combined):
>>>> +		1 - FLASH pin of the chip,
>>>> +		2 - TORCH pin of the chip,
>>>> +		4 - software via I2C command.
>>>
>>> Is it good idea to have bitfields like this?
>>>
>>> Make these required properties of the subnode?
>>
>> This is related to a single property: trigger. I think that splitting
>> it to three properties would make unnecessary noise in the
>> binding.
>
> Well, maybe it is not that much noise, and you'll have useful names
> (not a bitfield).

I think we'd need an opinion of at least one more person :)

> Should these properties move to the LED subnode?

I would leave them device specific.

Regards,
Jacek
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/