From: swarren@wwwdotorg•org (Stephen Warren)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists•infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH RFC v2 5/5] spmi: document the PMIC arbiter SPMI bindings
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 15:55:56 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5217DA6C.4060903@wwwdotorg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ea2d30d47cb54b4322231f5c319663ee9c996784.1377202730.git.joshc@codeaurora.org>
On 08/09/2013 02:37 PM, Josh Cartwright wrote:
Patch description?
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spmi/qcom,spmi-pmic-arb.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spmi/qcom,spmi-pmic-arb.txt
> +Required properties:
> +- compatible : should be "qcom,spmi-pmic-arb".
> +- reg-names : should be "core", "intr", "cnfg"
> +- reg : offset and length of the PMIC Arbiter Core register map.
> +- reg : offset and length of the PMIC Arbiter Interrupt controller register map.
> +- reg : offset and length of the PMIC Arbiter Configuration register map.
This seems like it's defining the "reg" property 3 times each with a
different meaning. It'd be better to say something like:
reg : register specifier. Must contain 3 entries, in the following
order: core registers, interrupt register, configuration registers.
> + qcom,spmi at fc4c0000 {
...
> + qcom,pm8841 at 4 {
Node names typically don't include a vendor prefix. For the first
instance above, I think just "spmi at fc4c0000" or even just "spmi" would
be appropriate here; the latter being best in the case where there's
only 1 SPMI controller and hence no need to include the unit address for
uniqueness.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-08-23 21:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-08-22 20:18 [PATCH RFC v2 0/3] Add support for the System Power Management Interface (SPMI) Josh Cartwright
2013-08-09 20:37 ` [PATCH RFC v2 4/5] spmi: Add MSM PMIC Arbiter SPMI controller Josh Cartwright
2013-08-09 20:37 ` [PATCH RFC v2 5/5] spmi: document the PMIC arbiter SPMI bindings Josh Cartwright
2013-08-23 21:55 ` Stephen Warren [this message]
2013-08-09 20:37 ` [PATCH RFC v2 2/5] spmi: Linux driver framework for SPMI Josh Cartwright
2013-08-22 23:10 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2013-08-23 16:06 ` Josh Cartwright
2013-09-09 15:52 ` Mark Brown
2013-09-09 16:56 ` Josh Cartwright
2013-08-22 19:59 ` [PATCH RFC v2 3/5] spmi: add generic SPMI controller binding documentation Josh Cartwright
2013-08-23 21:58 ` Stephen Warren
2013-08-27 17:01 ` Josh Cartwright
2013-08-27 21:55 ` Stephen Warren
2013-08-28 18:00 ` Josh Cartwright
2013-08-28 18:32 ` Stephen Warren
2013-10-06 6:11 ` Bjorn Andersson
2013-10-07 21:17 ` Josh Cartwright
2013-08-22 22:57 ` [PATCH RFC v2 1/5] of: Add empty for_each_available_child_of_node() macro definition Josh Cartwright
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5217DA6C.4060903@wwwdotorg.org \
--to=swarren@wwwdotorg$(echo .)org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists$(echo .)infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox