From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Warren Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mfd: DT bindings for the palmas family MFD Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2013 11:13:46 -0600 Message-ID: <51AF71CA.8060808@wwwdotorg.org> References: <1370335309-6319-1-git-send-email-j-keerthy@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1370335309-6319-1-git-send-email-j-keerthy@ti.com> Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org To: J Keerthy Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com, rob.herring@calxeda.com, rob@landley.net, sameo@linux.intel.com, wim@iguana.be, lgirdwood@gmail.com, gg@slimlogic.co.uk, t-kristo@ti.com, lee.jones@linaro.org, Ian Lartey List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 06/04/2013 02:41 AM, J Keerthy wrote: > From: Graeme Gregory > > Add the various binding files for the palmas family of chips. There is a > top level MFD binding then a seperate binding for regulators IP blocks on chips. > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/palmas.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/palmas.txt > +Optional properties: > + ti,mux_padX : set the pad register X (1-2) to the correct muxing for the > + hardware, if not set will use muxing in OTP. > + > +Example: ... > + ti,mux-pad1 = <0>; > + ti,mux-pad2 = <0>; Use of - vs. _ is inconsistent there. It should be -. > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/palmas-pmic.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/palmas-pmic.txt > +Optional nodes: > +- regulators : should contain the constrains and init information for the > + regulators. It should contain a subnode per regulator from the > + list. I would re-phrase that as: Must contain a sub-node per regulator from the list below. Each sub-node should contain the constraints and initialization information for that regulator. See regulator.txt for a description of standard properties for these sub-nodes. Additional custom properties are listed below. > + For ti,palmas-pmic - smps12, smps123, smps3 depending on OTP, > + smps45, smps457, smps7 depending on varient, smps6, smps[8-10], typo: s/varient/variant/. > + ldo[1-9], ldoln, ldousb nit: s/$/./ ? > + > + optional chip specific regulator fields :- Perhaps "Optional sub-node properties:"? > +pmic { > + compatible = "ti,twl6035-pmic", "ti,palmas-pmic"; > + interrupt-parent = <&palmas>; > + interrupts = <14 IRQ_TYPE_NONE>; > + interrupt-name = "short-irq"; If those are required, shouldn't they be listed in a "Required properties" section above? In particular, the order of entries in the interrupts property must be defined, as well as the expected nameds in the interrupt-name property. Oh, and it's interrupt-names not interrupt-name. Oh, one question though: How does the regulator driver determine the register address of the regulator sub-device within the overall PMIC? Presumably if these are pluggable independent modules, that could change depending on which overall chip the PMIC device is plugged into. don't you need a reg property to specify that? Aside from those comments, this all looks reasonable to me.