[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <152777867392.144038.18188452389972834689@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 07:57:53 -0700
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
To: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc: Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
linux-clk <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
mikko.mutanen@...rohmeurope.com, heikki.haikola@...rohmeurope.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/6] mfd: bd71837: Devicetree bindings for ROHM BD71837 PMIC
Quoting Rob Herring (2018-05-31 07:07:24)
> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 5:23 AM, Matti Vaittinen
> <mazziesaccount@...il.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 10:17:17AM +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> >> Hello Rob,
> >>
> >> Thanks for the review!
> >>
> >> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 10:01:29PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> >> > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 11:42:03AM +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> >> > > Document devicetree bindings for ROHM BD71837 PMIC MFD.
> >> > > + - interrupts : The interrupt line the device is connected to.
> >> > > + - interrupt-controller : Marks the device node as an interrupt controller.
> >> >
> >> > What sub blocks have interrupts?
> >>
> >> The PMIC can generate interrupts from events which cause it to reset.
> >> Eg, irq from watchdog line change, power button pushes, reset request
> >> via register interface etc. I don't know any generic handling for these
> >> interrupts. In "normal" use-case this PMIC is powering the processor
> >> where driver is running and I do not see reasonable handling because
> >> power-reset is going to follow the irq.
> >>
> >
> > Oh, but when reading this I understand that the interrupt-controller
> > property should at least be optional.
>
> I don't think it should. The h/w either has an interrupt controller or
> it doesn't. My concern is you added it but nothing uses it which tells
> me your binding is incomplete. I'd rather see complete bindings even
> if you don't have drivers. For example, as-is, there's not really any
> need for the clocks child node. You can just make the parent a clock
> provider. But we need a complete picture of the h/w to make that
> determination.
>
I don't see a reason to have the clk subnode either.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists