[lkml]   [2018]   [Sep]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v7 1/6] dt-bindings: ti-lmu: Remove LM3697
Hi Pavel,

On 09/14/2018 10:18 AM, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>>>> How do I politely explain that the original implementation was wrong for certain devices?
>>> Implementation? Device tree is hardware description.
>> Yes this hardware description is incorrect. The hardware description is
>> describing a MFD but this LED driver (and a couple others) only perform
>> 1 function and that is to drive a LED string.
> So what? Does not seem incorrect to me. Maybe the description should
> not be in MFD directory, but other than that...
>>>> Isn't code and documentation supposed to be pushed in stages
>>>> together?
>>> Device tree is _not_ documentation. And yes, it is normally pushed
>>> together. But that did not happen here, and bindings are already in.
>> Hmm.. Its not documentation but it is in the Documentation folder.
>> And just because the bindings are in does not mean they cannot be
>> changed.
> You may want to learn more about device tree and/or talk to the device
> tree maintainers. This is an old article.

The article title is "Device trees as ABI". A device tree is defined
in the "*.dts" file that is then compiled to a dtb blob, which
constitutes the ABI. And this ABI should be kept backwards compatible.

What is discussed here is a documentation of bindings, i.e. according
to ePAPR: "requirements for how specific types and classes of devices
are represented in the device tree".

From the bindings documented in the
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/ti-lmu.txt only
ti,lm3532-backlight is used in the mainline dts file

Having the above it seems that there is no risk of breaking any

> NAK on this patch. I see that this binding has problems, but
> introducing different binding for subset of devices is _not_ a fix.
>>> What about the multi function devices? They should have same binding.
>> The MFD devices defined are not in contention here only the SFD.
> I'd like to see common solutions for SFD and MFD, as the hardware is
> similar, and that includes the code. Having code that is easier to
> maintain is important, and having many drivers are harder to maintain
> than one driver.
> Milo's code looks better than yours in that regard. I disagree about
> Milo's code being "nightmare" to modify, and care about "easy to
> maintain" more than "binary size".

Easy to maintain will be a dedicated LED class driver.

Best regards,
Jacek Anaszewski

 \ /
  Last update: 2018-09-14 22:16    [W:0.085 / U:4.492 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site