From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tomasz.figa@gmail.com (Tomasz Figa) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 01:15:54 +0200 Subject: Do we have people interested in device tree janitoring / cleanup? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1619688.mith7vb7oh@flatron> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Olof, On Wednesday 24 of July 2013 08:27:13 Olof Johansson wrote: > Every now and then I come across a binding that's just done Wrong(tm), > merged through a submaintainer tree and hasn't seen proper review -- > if it had, it wouldn't look the way it does. It's something we're > starting to address now since there's more people stepping up to be > maintainers, but there's a backlog of bad bindings already merged. > > Often they are produced by translating the platform_data structures > directly over into device-tree properties without consideration to > describing the hardware or usual conventions, using key/value pairs > instead of boolean properties, etc. > > Getting involved in cleaning up these kind of bindings is a great way > to learn "the ways of device tree" for someone that has interest in > that. > > Latest find in this area is the Maxim 8925 bindings, that I came > across since they caused a compile warning on some defconfig. I'll > post a patch to address the warning but if someone else feels like > fixing the bindings on top of it that would be appreciated! Care to explain your doubts about max8952 bindings? As far as I remember it's just a standard single voltage regulator (= generic regulator bindings) + some device specific properties. Looking at Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/max8952.txt I don't really see anything worrying... Best regards, Tomasz