[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAL_JsqJ8--8Wj9L3LFDrUpeQ33MUu3RwZfxM2x5tAr0Dp4uVqg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 09:43:20 -0500
From: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To: Enric Balletbo Serra <eballetbo@...il.com>
Cc: Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@...labora.com>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-omap@...r.kernel.org" <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux LED Subsystem <linux-leds@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-input@...r.kernel.org" <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>,
Jingoo Han <jingoohan1@...il.com>,
Richard Purdie <rpurdie@...ys.net>,
Jacek Anaszewski <jacek.anaszewski@...il.com>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@...hile0.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] dt-bindings: tps65217: Update binding documentation.
On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Enric Balletbo Serra
<eballetbo@...il.com> wrote:
> Hello Rob,
>
> 2017-06-09 16:03 GMT+02:00 Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>:
>> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 12:32:39PM +0200, Enric Balletbo i Serra wrote:
>>> This patch adds a new binding documentation for the TPS65217 MFD and
>>> updates the documentation for all the sub-devices in accordance to get
>>> each individual sub-driver functioning correctly.
>>
>> Explain why breaking compatibility is okay.
>>
>
> We had some discussion in patch 4 that make me rethink a bit all this,
> please let me send a new version and continue the discussion there
> (now I'm not sure if I'll break the compatibility or not)
>
> But let me ask a question. The TPS65217 MFD has different sub-nodes
> (charger, backlight, pwrbutton, regulators) in DT, I suspect the
> answer is no, but is it ok that some of them were not described in the
> DT because there is nothing to configure?
But you are configuring the interrupts. I'm all for not creating nodes
just for the purpose instantiating a driver (DT is not the only way to
create platform devices) when the parent node is sufficient. We see
both models, but we don't really want a mixture of both ways so I'd
stick with the latter here.
> i.e: Have this because the resources of charger and pwrbutton are
> static so can be hard-coded in the driver
>
> &tps {
> compatible = "ti,tps65217";
> interrupt-controller;
> #interrupt-cells = <1>;
>
> regulators {
> #address-cells = <1>;
> #size-cells = <0>;
>
> dcdc1_reg: regulator@0 {
> reg = <0>;
> ...
> };
> };
>
> instead of :
>
> &tps {
> compatible = "ti,tps65217";
> interrupt-controller;
> #interrupt-cells = <1>;
>
> charger {
> compatible = "ti,tps65217-charger";
> interrupts = <0>, <1>;
> interrupt-names = "USB", "AC";
> };
>
> pwrbutton {
> compatible = "ti,tps65217-pwrbutton";
> interrupts = <2>;
> };
>
> regulators {
> #address-cells = <1>;
> #size-cells = <0>;
>
> dcdc1_reg: regulator@0 {
> reg = <0>;
> ...
> };
> };
Powered by blists - more mailing lists