From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-path: <linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mailout3.w1.samsung.com ([210.118.77.13]:13916 "EHLO
	mailout3.w1.samsung.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753209AbaLAM6g (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-media@vger.kernel.org>); Mon, 1 Dec 2014 07:58:36 -0500
Message-id: <547C65F7.4090801@samsung.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 13:58:31 +0100
From: Jacek Anaszewski <j.anaszewski@samsung.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
Cc: linux-leds@vger.kernel.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kyungmin.park@samsung.com,
	b.zolnierkie@samsung.com, cooloney@gmail.com, rpurdie@rpsys.net,
	sakari.ailus@iki.fi, s.nawrocki@samsung.com,
	Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@samsung.com>,
	Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>,
	SangYoung Son <hello.son@smasung.com>,
	Samuel Ortiz <sameo@linux.intel.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@arm.com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@codeaurora.org>, devicetree@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC v8 11/14] DT: Add documentation for the mfd Maxim
 max77693
References: <1417166286-27685-1-git-send-email-j.anaszewski@samsung.com>
 <1417166286-27685-12-git-send-email-j.anaszewski@samsung.com>
 <20141129192607.GB17355@amd>
In-reply-to: <20141129192607.GB17355@amd>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-media.vger.kernel.org>

Hi Pavel,

Thanks for the review.

On 11/29/2014 08:26 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/max77693.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/max77693.txt
>> index 01e9f30..50a8dad 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/max77693.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/max77693.txt
>> @@ -41,6 +41,62 @@ Optional properties:
>>   	 To get more informations, please refer to documentaion.
>>   	[*] refer Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm.txt
>>
>> +- led-flash : the LED submodule device node
>> +
>> +There are two led outputs available - fled1 and fled2. Each of them can
>> +control a separate led or they can be connected together to double
>> +the maximum current for a single connected led. One led is represented
>> +by one child node.
>> +
>> +Required properties:
>> +- compatible : must be "maxim,max77693-flash"
>> +
>> +Optional properties:
>> +- maxim,fleds : array of current outputs in order: fled1, fled2
>> +	Note: both current outputs can be connected to a single led
>> +	Possible values:
>> +		0 - the output is left disconnected,
>> +		1 - a diode is connected to the output.
>
> Is this one needed? Just ommit child note if it is not there.

It is needed because you can have one led connected two both
outputs. This allows to describe such a design.

>> +- maxim,trigger-type : Array of trigger types in order: flash, torch
>> +	Possible trigger types:
>> +		0 - Rising edge of the signal triggers the flash/torch,
>> +		1 - Signal level controls duration of the flash/torch.
>> +- maxim,trigger : Array of flags indicating which trigger can activate given led
>> +	in order: fled1, fled2
>> +	Possible flag values (can be combined):
>> +		1 - FLASH pin of the chip,
>> +		2 - TORCH pin of the chip,
>> +		4 - software via I2C command.
>
> Is it good idea to have bitfields like this?
>
> Make these required properties of the subnode?

This is related to a single property: trigger. I think that splitting
it to three properties would make unnecessary noise in the
binding.

Best Regards,
Jacek Anaszewski