Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 05 Jun 2013 11:13:46 -0600 | From | Stephen Warren <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] mfd: DT bindings for the palmas family MFD |
| |
On 06/04/2013 02:41 AM, J Keerthy wrote: > From: Graeme Gregory <gg@slimlogic.co.uk> > > Add the various binding files for the palmas family of chips. There is a > top level MFD binding then a seperate binding for regulators IP blocks on chips.
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/palmas.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/palmas.txt
> +Optional properties: > + ti,mux_padX : set the pad register X (1-2) to the correct muxing for the > + hardware, if not set will use muxing in OTP. > + > +Example: ... > + ti,mux-pad1 = <0>; > + ti,mux-pad2 = <0>;
Use of - vs. _ is inconsistent there. It should be -.
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/palmas-pmic.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/palmas-pmic.txt
> +Optional nodes: > +- regulators : should contain the constrains and init information for the > + regulators. It should contain a subnode per regulator from the > + list.
I would re-phrase that as:
Must contain a sub-node per regulator from the list below. Each sub-node should contain the constraints and initialization information for that regulator. See regulator.txt for a description of standard properties for these sub-nodes. Additional custom properties are listed below.
> + For ti,palmas-pmic - smps12, smps123, smps3 depending on OTP, > + smps45, smps457, smps7 depending on varient, smps6, smps[8-10],
typo: s/varient/variant/.
> + ldo[1-9], ldoln, ldousb
nit: s/$/./ ?
> + > + optional chip specific regulator fields :-
Perhaps "Optional sub-node properties:"?
> +pmic { > + compatible = "ti,twl6035-pmic", "ti,palmas-pmic"; > + interrupt-parent = <&palmas>; > + interrupts = <14 IRQ_TYPE_NONE>; > + interrupt-name = "short-irq";
If those are required, shouldn't they be listed in a "Required properties" section above? In particular, the order of entries in the interrupts property must be defined, as well as the expected nameds in the interrupt-name property.
Oh, and it's interrupt-names not interrupt-name.
Oh, one question though: How does the regulator driver determine the register address of the regulator sub-device within the overall PMIC? Presumably if these are pluggable independent modules, that could change depending on which overall chip the PMIC device is plugged into. don't you need a reg property to specify that?
Aside from those comments, this all looks reasonable to me.
| |