[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <821646c01d3efbba1eaabc7f5da8048fe4f25bbd.camel@fi.rohmeurope.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2020 08:38:42 +0000
From: "Vaittinen, Matti" <Matti.Vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>
To: "robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
"lee.jones@...aro.org" <lee.jones@...aro.org>
CC: "mazziesaccount@...il.com" <mazziesaccount@...il.com>,
"lgirdwood@...il.com" <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
"broonie@...nel.org" <broonie@...nel.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] dt-bindings: bd718x7: Yamlify and add BD71850
Hi de Ho Peeps,
On Tue, 2020-01-07 at 09:37 -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 7:01 AM Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Dec 2019, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> >
> > > Convert ROHM bd71837 and bd71847 PMIC binding text docs to yaml.
> > > Split
> > > the binding document to two separate documents (own documents for
> > > BD71837
> > > and BD71847) as they have different amount of regulators. This
> > > way we can
> > > better enforce the node name check for regulators. ROHM is also
> > > providing
> > > BD71850 - which is almost identical to BD71847 - main difference
> > > is some
> > > initial regulator states. The BD71850 can be driven by same
> > > driver and it
> > > has same buck/LDO setup as BD71847 - add it to BD71847 binding
> > > document and
> > > introduce compatible for it.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com
> > > >
> > > ---
> > >
> > > changes since v1:
> > > - constrains to short and long presses.
> > > - reworded commit message to shorten a line exceeding 75 chars
> > > - added 'additionalProperties: false'
> > > - removed 'clock-names' from example node
> > >
> > > .../bindings/mfd/rohm,bd71837-pmic.txt | 90 -------
> > > .../bindings/mfd/rohm,bd71837-pmic.yaml | 236
> > > ++++++++++++++++++
> > > .../bindings/mfd/rohm,bd71847-pmic.yaml | 222
> > > ++++++++++++++++
> > > .../regulator/rohm,bd71837-regulator.txt | 162 ------------
> > > .../regulator/rohm,bd71837-regulator.yaml | 103 ++++++++
> > > .../regulator/rohm,bd71847-regulator.yaml | 97 +++++++
> >
> > Can you split these out per-subsystem, so that I can apply the MFD
> > changes please?
>
> That's not going to work any more. The MFD binding references the
> child bindings and the complete example(s) resides in the MFD
> binding.
So is it Ok to take all of these in MFD tree - or how should this be
done? Can Rob get them in after acks from Lee/Mark?
Br,
Matti Vaittinen
Powered by blists - more mailing lists