From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/6] dt-bindings: ti-lmu: Remove LM3697 Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 23:42:20 +0200 Message-ID: <20180914214220.GA2081@amd> References: <20180911170825.17789-1-dmurphy@ti.com> <20180911170825.17789-2-dmurphy@ti.com> <20180911200530.GA28290@amd> <85ab3bf4-21d4-dda9-a7c8-5ed68f15c611@ti.com> <20180912214938.GA30654@amd> <7950fa32-c8f9-52bb-06b0-0c1cc93b6bc9@ti.com> <20180914081822.GA21830@amd> <9c14ee7c-f172-bb0c-d9a8-8aeee408f716@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="G4iJoqBmSsgzjUCe" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9c14ee7c-f172-bb0c-d9a8-8aeee408f716@gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jacek Anaszewski Cc: Dan Murphy , robh+dt@kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lee.jones@linaro.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-leds@vger.kernel.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org --G4iJoqBmSsgzjUCe Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi! > > You may want to learn more about device tree and/or talk to the device > > tree maintainers. This is an old article. https://lwn.net/Articles/5614= 62/ >=20 > The article title is "Device trees as ABI". A device tree is defined > in the "*.dts" file that is then compiled to a dtb blob, which > constitutes the ABI. And this ABI should be kept backwards compatible. >=20 > What is discussed here is a documentation of bindings, i.e. according > to ePAPR: "requirements for how specific types and classes of devices > are represented in the device tree". >=20 > >From the bindings documented in the > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/ti-lmu.txt only > ti,lm3532-backlight is used in the mainline dts file > (arch/arm/boot/dts/omap4-droid4-xt894.dts). >=20 > Having the above it seems that there is no risk of breaking any > users. DTBs and bindings are supposed to be portable between operating systems. You are right there are no _mainline_ _Linux_ users. > > NAK on this patch. I see that this binding has problems, but > > introducing different binding for subset of devices is _not_ a fix. > >=20 > >>> What about the multi function devices? They should have same binding. > >> > >> The MFD devices defined are not in contention here only the SFD. > >=20 > > I'd like to see common solutions for SFD and MFD, as the hardware is > > similar, and that includes the code. Having code that is easier to > > maintain is important, and having many drivers are harder to maintain > > than one driver. > >=20 > > Milo's code looks better than yours in that regard. I disagree about > > Milo's code being "nightmare" to modify, and care about "easy to > > maintain" more than "binary size". >=20 > Easy to maintain will be a dedicated LED class driver. You mean, 3 dedicated LED class drivers and 3 MFD drivers with LED parts? We'll need complex driver anyway, and I'd really like to have just one. Pavel --=20 (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blo= g.html --G4iJoqBmSsgzjUCe Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iEYEARECAAYFAlucKzwACgkQMOfwapXb+vKGhACfYFjlT+injDg6vImcqfgqAGzY aPYAoKPf+IRKyxKe+WsnjSmayJNR38cU =4BH5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --G4iJoqBmSsgzjUCe--