From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mailout4.w1.samsung.com ([210.118.77.14]:55359 "EHLO mailout4.w1.samsung.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752809AbaLANn4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Dec 2014 08:43:56 -0500 Message-id: <547C7097.4040907@samsung.com> Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 14:43:51 +0100 From: Jacek Anaszewski MIME-version: 1.0 To: Pavel Machek 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 , Lee Jones , SangYoung Son , Samuel Ortiz , Rob Herring , Pawel Moll , Mark Rutland , Ian Campbell , Kumar Gala , 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> <547C65F7.4090801@samsung.com> <20141201130231.GA24737@amd> In-reply-to: <20141201130231.GA24737@amd> Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Pavel, On 12/01/2014 02:02 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > >>> 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. > > Ok. > >>>> +- 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. > > Well, maybe it is not that much noise, and you'll have useful names > (not a bitfield). I think we'd need an opinion of at least one more person :) > Should these properties move to the LED subnode? I would leave them device specific. Regards, Jacek