From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: pali.rohar@gmail.com (Pali =?utf-8?q?Roh=C3=A1r?=) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 11:09:45 +0100 Subject: [RFC] adp1653: Add device tree bindings for LED controller In-Reply-To: <20141117100519.GA4353@amd> References: <20141116075928.GA9763@amd> <201411170943.20810@pali> <20141117100519.GA4353@amd> Message-ID: <201411171109.47795@pali> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Monday 17 November 2014 11:05:19 Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > On Mon 2014-11-17 09:43:19, Pali Roh?r wrote: > > On Sunday 16 November 2014 08:59:28 Pavel Machek wrote: > > > For device tree people: Yes, I know I'll have to create > > > file in documentation, but does the binding below look > > > acceptable? > > > > > > I'll clean up driver code a bit more, remove the printks. > > > Anything else obviously wrong? > > > > I think that this patch is probably not good and specially > > not for n900. adp1653 should be registered throw omap3 isp > > camera subsystem which does not have DT support yet. > > Can you explain? > > adp1653 is independend device on i2c bus, and we have kernel > driver for it (unlike rest of n900 camera system). Just now > it is unusable due to lack of DT binding. It has two > functions, LED light and a camera flash; yes, the second one > should be integrated to the rest of camera system, but that > is not yet merged. That should not prevent us from merging DT > support for the flash, so that this part can be > tested/maintained. > Ok. When ISP camera subsystem has DT support somebody will modify n900 DT to add camera flash from adp1653 to ISP... I believe it will not be hard. > > See n900 legacy board camera code in file > > board-rx51-camera.c. > > I have seen that. > Pavel -- Pali Roh?r pali.rohar at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: