Re: [PATCH v9 2/2] mfd: bd71837: Devicetree bindings for ROHM BD71837 PMIC

[Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>]

On Thu, 05 Jul 2018, Matti Vaittinen wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 11:49:19AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Thu, 05 Jul 2018, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 10:24:44AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 05 Jul 2018, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Document devicetree bindings for ROHM BD71837 PMIC MFD.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@fi.rohmeurope.com>
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  .../devicetree/bindings/mfd/rohm,bd71837-pmic.txt  | 67 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > >  1 file changed, 67 insertions(+)
> > > > >  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/rohm,bd71837-pmic.txt
> > > > > +		clock-names = "my-clock";
> > > > > +		clocks = <&pmic>;
> > > > > +	};
> > > > 
> > > > Do you have a real example to give?
> > > 
> > > For clock consumer? Sorry, no I don't.
> > 
> > Might be better to drop it for the time being then.
> 
> I have tested the clk driver using this dummy consumer. So in a sense it
> "works" and can be used as an example on how to write a real clock
> consumer node. Thus I see some value in this example node - even if it
> does not match to any real world HW. If I had to use the clk from this
> PMIC and write HW description I would appreciate this dummy exaple. I
> can drop it if you insist - but I would at least like to hear what is
> the downside on having it here?

My suggestion then would be to make it look as authentic as possible.

It is only an example, so it doesn't *really* matter, but the current
foo,bar one just looks a bit crumby.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Linaro Services Technical Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog