linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 5/7] dt-bindings: ti-lmu: Modify dt bindings for the LM3633

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]

Message-ID: <20181024183835.GA17911@amd>
Date:   Wed, 24 Oct 2018 20:38:35 +0200
From:   Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:     Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc:     Dan Murphy <dmurphy@...com>, jacek.anaszewski@...il.com,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-leds@...r.kernel.org, lee.jones@...aro.org, tony@...mide.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/7] dt-bindings: ti-lmu: Modify dt bindings for the
 LM3633

On Wed 2018-10-24 09:35:06, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 11:23:28AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > On Tue 2018-10-23 12:06:21, Dan Murphy wrote:
> > > The LM3633 is a single function LED driver. The single function LED
> > > driver needs to reside in the LED directory as a dedicated LED driver
> > > and not as a MFD device.  The device does have common brightness and ramp
> > > features and those can be accomodated by a TI LMU framework.
> > > 
> > > The LM3633 dt binding needs to be moved from the ti-lmu.txt and a dedicated
> > > LED dt binding needs to be added.  The new LM3633 LED dt binding will then
> > > reside in the Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds directory and follow the
> > > current LED and general bindings guidelines.
> > 
> > What?
> > 
> > >  .../devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-lm3633.txt  | 102 ++++++++++++++++++
> > >  .../devicetree/bindings/mfd/ti-lmu.txt        |  48 ---------
> > >  2 files changed, 102 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-)
> > >  create mode 100644
> > >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-lm3633.txt
> > 
> > > index 920f910be4e9..573e88578d3d 100644
> > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/ti-lmu.txt
> > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/ti-lmu.txt
> > > @@ -7,7 +7,6 @@ TI LMU driver supports lighting devices below.
> > >    LM3532       Backlight
> > >    LM3631       Backlight and regulator
> > >    LM3632       Backlight and regulator
> > > -  LM3633       Backlight, LED and fault monitor
> > >    LM3695       Backlight
> > 
> > Are you seriously proposing to take one binding and split it into 6
> > copy&pasted ones?
> > 
> > That's not the way we do development. NAK.
> > 
> > We don't want to have copy & pasted code. We also don't want to have
> > copy & pasted bindings. Nor changelogs, for that matter.
> 
> I looked at the LM3633 and LM3632 datasheets. They look quite different 
> to me and should be separate IMO. Just looking at different LED 
> functions and GPIO control lines is enough to make that determination. 
> The LM3697 looks like a subset of LM3633 at least at a schematic 
> diagram level, so maybe those can be shared.

Well, they have blocks in common, and are currently handled by one
driver. Two .c files proposed here shared 80% code when I reviewed
previous version. Original merge documentation is:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/fa.linux.kernel/hWvxahP7INw/Y2EDZmjoAQAJ

TI LMU(Lighting Management Unit) driver supports lighting devices
below.
 
 	                 Enable pin  Backlights  HWMON  LEDs   Regulators
	                 ----------  ----------  -----  ----  ------------
		  LM3532       o           o         x     x        x
		  LM3631       o           o         x     x    5 regulators
		  LM3632       o           o         x     x    3 regulators
		  LM3633       o           o         o     o        x
		  LM3695       o           o         x     x        x
		  LM3697       o           o         o     x        x


I thought I understood that table, but maybe I'm confused. Anyway,
there seemed to be "enough" to share.

> While we could litter the binding with conditions on properties 
> depending on specific compatible strings (such as which GPIO properties 
> apply to which compatible), that is going to be problematic down the 
> line when we convert to json-schema[1].

Well, situation where different devices share common features /
function blocks is going to be somehow common. Not sure how to solve
it in json, maybe the properties can simply be marked optional?, but I
guess it will need solving somehow.

> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/10/5/883

								Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (182 bytes)