Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] power_supply: tps65090-charger: Add binding doc

[Stephen Warren <swarren-3lzwWm7+Weoh9ZMKESR00Q@public.gmane.org>]

On 03/05/2013 12:12 PM, Rhyland Klein wrote:
> On 3/5/2013 1:15 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 03/04/2013 12:01 PM, Rhyland Klein wrote:
>>> This change adds the binding documentation for the tps65090-charger.
>>> diff --git
>>> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power_supply/tps65090.txt
>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power_supply/tps65090.txt
>> ...
>>> +Example:
>>> +
>>> +    tps65090@48 {
>> ...
>>> +        regulators {
>>> +            ...
>>> +        };
>>
>> The "regulators" node in the example isn't mentioned in the list of
>> properties/nodes that's above. What goes in there? You probably want to
>> include text similar to what I've quoted below from
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/tps6586x.txt:
>>
>>> - regulators: A node that houses a sub-node for each regulator within the
>>>    device. Each sub-node is identified using the node's name (or the deprecated
>>>    regulator-compatible property if present), with valid values listed below.
>>>    The content of each sub-node is defined by the standard binding for
>>>    regulators; see regulator.txt.
>>>    sys, sm[0-2], ldo[0-9] and ldo_rtc
>
> The reason I didn't bother documenting the regulators node was that
> since this is a child device
> driver of an mfd device, there is already a child driver for the
> regulators with its own documentation
> 
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/2051381/

Ah, I see.

> I wasn't sure how I should handle this, as splitting the bindings to
> make logic sense in the binding
> layout (charger under power_supply, and  regulators under regulator) or
> combine them somehow
> into a single documentation entry common to the device. The latter seems
> to make more sense to me,

Yes, given we're talking about properties in the same node, rather than
a binding for a new child node that could be plugged into arbitrary
parent nodes, I think everything should be documented in a single file.

> but since there aren't any dt specific entries for the core mfd part
> currently, it doesn't have its own
> documentation, and sticking the charger info under the regulators seemed
> backwards to me.

Hmmm. That's a good question. I'm not really sure where the best
location for that file would be. Admittedly regulators does seem
slightly over-specific, but short of creating a new bindings/mfd/
directory, it doesn't seem to unreasonable to just put the whole binding
in the existing file in bindings/regulators/.

Perhaps Grant or Rob can comment on what their preference would be.