[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170727102904.4l6atdtjsas2lhri@earth>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 12:29:04 +0200
From: Sebastian Reichel <sebastian.reichel@...labora.co.uk>
To: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc: Milo Kim <Milo.Kim@...com>, Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
Jingoo Han <jingoohan1@...il.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 1/2] dt-bindings: backlight: add ti-lmu-backlight
binding
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 11:58:26AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 03:39:55PM +0200, Sebastian Reichel wrote:
> > +Required property:
> > + - compatible: Should be one of:
> > + "ti,lm3532-backlight"
> > + "ti,lm3631-backlight"
> > + "ti,lm3632-backlight"
> > + "ti,lm3633-backlight"
> > + "ti,lm3695-backlight"
> > + "ti,lm3697-backlight"
>
> Some of the parts only do backlight, so drop the "-backlight" on those.
> And having a sub-node makes no sense in that case. Perhaps it should be
> 2 binding documents separating the single function devices and MFDs. The
> binding doc(s) doesn't have to align with the driver(s). You can have 1
> driver serve 2 bindings.
Yes, there is LM3532 and LM3695, which is backlight only as far as I
can see. Your suggestion contradicts with existing binding, though:
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/ti-lmu.txt
-- Sebastian
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists