lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Dec]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 1/2] dt: bindings: as3645a: Update dt node example with standard
Date
Hi Dan,

On Wednesday, 13 December 2017 14:55:03 EET Dan Murphy wrote:
> On 12/13/2017 02:09 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 12 December 2017 23:50:23 EET Dan Murphy wrote:
> >> Update the DT binding to remove the device name from
> >> the DT parent node as well as removing the device
> >> name from the label. The LED label will be generated
> >> based off the id name stored in the local driver so
> >> the LED function can be indicated in the label DT
> >> entry.
> >>
> >> Also removed the indentation on the example.
> >
> > This makes the patch a bit harder to review and seems to be a matter of
> > style.
>
> I debated whether to remove the extra tabs. The changes below came from
> comments from a recent LED driver I submitted.
>
> >> Signed-off-by: Dan Murphy <dmurphy@ti.com>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> .../devicetree/bindings/leds/ams,as3645a.txt | 36 +++++++++-------
> >> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/ams,as3645a.txt
> >> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/ams,as3645a.txt index
> >> fc7f5f9f234c..122aa7165cf3 100644
> >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/ams,as3645a.txt
> >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/ams,as3645a.txt
> >> @@ -58,22 +58,22 @@ label : The label of the indicator LED.
> >
> > I believe you should expand the documentation of the label property to
> > detail how it should be formed. It's nice to update the example, but the
> > bindings should be understandable without it.
>
> OK. I will add a reference to
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/common.txt
>
> label formation will be undergoing some changes. I wanted to make sure
> there were some good examples in the LED tree for other developers to
> reference.
>
> >> Example
> >> =======
> >>
> >> - as3645a@30 {
> >> - compatible = "ams,as3645a";
> >> - #address-cells = <1>;
> >> - #size-cells = <0>;
> >> - reg = <0x30>;
> >> - flash@0 {
> >> - reg = <0x0>;
> >> - flash-timeout-us = <150000>;
> >> - flash-max-microamp = <320000>;
> >> - led-max-microamp = <60000>;
> >> - ams,input-max-microamp = <1750000>;
> >> - label = "as3645a:flash";
> >> - };
> >> - indicator@1 {
> >> - reg = <0x1>;
> >> - led-max-microamp = <10000>;
> >> - label = "as3645a:indicator";
> >> - };
> >> +led-controller@30 {
> >
> > This change looks fine to me.
> >
> >> + compatible = "ams,as3645a";
> >> + #address-cells = <1>;
> >> + #size-cells = <0>;
> >> + reg = <0x30>;
> >> + led@0 {
> >
> > What's the rationale for changing the node name here ? It should be
> > explained in the commit message, and in the DT bindings documentation.
>
> In my patch to the DT maintainers Rob H indicated
>
> "Actually, it should be led-controller and led or leds be used for the
> LED child nodes (and gpio-led or pwd-led bindings)"
>
> Here is the patch that the node naming conventions took place
>
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10093757

OK, that makes sense to me.

Acked-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>

> >> + reg = <0x0>;
> >> + flash-timeout-us = <150000>;
> >> + flash-max-microamp = <320000>;
> >> + led-max-microamp = <60000>;
> >> + ams,input-max-microamp = <1750000>;
> >> + label = "flash";
> >>
> >> };
> >>
> >> + led@1 {
> >> + reg = <0x1>;
> >> + led-max-microamp = <10000>;
> >> + label = "indicator";
> >> + };
> >> +};

--
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-12-13 17:30    [W:0.051 / U:1.744 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site