Re: [RFC 1/8] dt-bindings: mfd: Add Altera Arria10 System Resource Chip bindings

[Thor Thayer <tthayer@opensource.altera.com>]

On 04/01/2016 03:14 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2016, Thor Thayer wrote:
>> On 03/30/2016 06:35 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
>>> On Tue, 29 Mar 2016, tthayer@opensource.altera.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> From: Thor Thayer <tthayer@opensource.altera.com>
>
> [...]
>
>>>> +The A10SR consists of this varied group of sub-devices:
>>>> +
>>>> +Device                   Description
>>>> +------                   ----------
>>>> +altr_a10sr_gpio          GPIO Controller
>>>> +altr_a10sr_hwmon         Hardware Monitor
>>>> +
>>>> +The LEDs are implemented entirely in the device tree using
>>>> +the gpio-led framework.
>>>
>>> This is a Linuxisum and should not live in DT bindings.
>>
>> I was following the format of other mfd binding documents such as
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/da9055.txt so I'll need your
>> help understanding this.
>>
>> I'm not familiar with the phrase Linuxisum. A Google search turns up
>> several threads referencing Linuxisum but I can't seem to find the
>> definition. One thread seems to imply that an existing driver such
>> as GPIO is a Linuxisum and should not be re-defined. Am I
>> understanding correctly?
>
> Linuxisum is a made up word.  Actually, it looks like I placed a
> superfluous 'u' in there, but I assume most people would get the gist.
> Some examples ending in "ism" which might push the point across are
> "colloquialism" and "feminism", where the "ism" can probably be taken
> to mean "pertaining to".  So in the example above, we might reasonably
> conclude that I meant "pertaining to Linux", which I did.
>
> In other words "the gpio-led framework" is something we have in Linux,
> but might not exist in other OSes.  And considering DT is supposed to
> be OS agnostic and the documentation relevant to all OSes, you can not
> and should not document Linuxisms.
>

Got it. Thanks for the explanation! I'll make the changes.

>>>> +Example:
>>>> +
>>>> +        a10-sr: a10-sr@0 {
>>>
>>> Nodes should be named after their device 'type'.
>>>
>>> Does this device really start a address 0?
>>
>> OK. If I understand, this should be named after mfd then?
>
> MFDs are usually a little tougher, but in your case I think it should
> be "resource-manager" or similar.
>
>>>> +		compatible = "altr,altr-a10sr";
>>>> +		reg = <0>;
>>>> +		spi-max-frequency = <100000>;
>>>> +
>>>> +		a10sr_gpio: a10sr_gpio {
>>>
>>> Device type only please.
>>
>> And this would be a gpio?
>
> Exactly.
>