Re: [PATCH v6 03/11] dt-bindings: mfd: add documentation for S2MU005 PMIC

["Kaustabh Chakraborty" <kauschluss@disroot.org>]

On 2026-05-18 12:23 +02:00, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 18/05/2026 11:45, Conor Dooley wrote:
>> On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 09:15:11AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 17/05/2026 22:52, Conor Dooley wrote:
>>>> On Sun, May 17, 2026 at 06:39:37PM +0530, Kaustabh Chakraborty wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +    properties:
>>>>>>>>> +      compatible:
>>>>>>>>> +        const: samsung,s2mu005-rgb
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +    required:
>>>>>>>>> +      - compatible
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +    unevaluatedProperties: false
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +  reg:
>>>>>>>>> +    maxItems: 1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Move this above the child nodes please.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But properties are sorted in lex order?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Typically the binding is sorted in the same order as properties go in
>>>>>> nodes. Common stuff like reg/clocks/interrupts therefore send up above
>>>>>> child nodes.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, do I change this? For one, I don't see the same being followed in
>>>>> other schemas of samsung in the same dir (not that I'm trying to pose it
>>>>> as an argument against your suggestion), and this was reviewed by
>>>>> Krzysztof and is adderssed in v7.
>>>>
>>>> If Krzysztof doesn't care, then I won't ask you to change it.
>>>
>>> This builds on top of bindings for previous Samsung PMIC devices, so
>>> that's why it keeps the compatibles for children, I guess. No one
>>> complained about this at v1-v2 reviews, so when I joined reviewing in v3
>>> I did not, either.
>>>
>>> I don't think the compatible should be here, but I also don't want to
>>> stall that patchset. I understand that it is inconsistent review from my
>>> side, because other similar patchsets receive comment to drop the
>>> compatible. But I don't think we will be fair asking to drop the
>>> compatible now, when we did not ask for that in the early versions at all.
>> 
>> 
>> I think you misunderstood, we were talking about the ordering of the
>> properties in the binding file being alphanumerical, rather than the
>> more typical approach of approximately following the order of
>> dts-coding-style.
>
>
> Ah, then I misunderstood and, even though it is a nit, I do care because
> old code is then used for new patches. Bindings follow DTS rules, thus
> should be:
> 1. compatible
> 2. reg
> 3. core properties
> 4. vendor properties
>
> Kaustabh, can you change it please?

Ack, will do that in v8 then.

While at it, do you also want me to drop the multi-led compatible string?
So it would be:

  multi-led:
    $ref: /schemas/leds/leds-class-multicolor.yaml#

>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof