From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CCB8ECE560 for ; Fri, 14 Sep 2018 20:15:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F36982146E for ; Fri, 14 Sep 2018 20:15:46 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="e5+l3VlY" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org F36982146E Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728082AbeIOBbq (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Sep 2018 21:31:46 -0400 Received: from mail-lj1-f193.google.com ([209.85.208.193]:42971 "EHLO mail-lj1-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726891AbeIOBbp (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Sep 2018 21:31:45 -0400 Received: by mail-lj1-f193.google.com with SMTP id f1-v6so8490495ljc.9; Fri, 14 Sep 2018 13:15:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=o95ffNe9LLpHd9bMC6AhZhuffWZP8KYcCsNn22CV8CI=; b=e5+l3VlYJLhqOph8GbHia7/RQw8PS95vYhFf++rdZyrd9PsFj3hY1++98thXVlW375 tsPaaYYIU5+Bu+Ha5mdxsYxUdvYt016Ln7GS6zDYQwkd3lG8QofIQukgCWbLO4yAnxoe /h+VqN+P8WrkrixLNOm3y0Yfe2ZZzb0i6u9qCjmuWkLP/i9dh3VojCSfmroTfcEdBdJi yb8XCWekgoE6vlMuzp2n52fj868QD0OVJBrrcd6vGSwzX43gqC3UHMNBdsm9o9aBbj5f c5TdF6nxanP7sgBTToHs4ZkTQEKl4nXTf148GRtNaOgvNcWFQLMLZUtZZlvrR2T61tv+ +IOQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=o95ffNe9LLpHd9bMC6AhZhuffWZP8KYcCsNn22CV8CI=; b=L59P57hG3IF+eDS3uf/nY8EJ0ks4YgQJ0lnbe53Fikd4+Cv0RkSu/zufEorOL1Prd6 1zD/f0WQ+Vi56YqBKdPcdBpNPXIGDoLvhTu7wR4mjpdAUUvArR1cLz6O4C715p/la7Ul AzxwvKsuEAiKVoFXubv6VPoWw1r++piMADnchN9lWG7VAWmKJq6KcwYxcqenSfzFMlcP nOuFtQqaMd/DcGSslzBFQI5sbgHhXz9elfUpSdlIsv0l9qm2rCZ95N9jfgdejgh8la9Q CmoOnpc/VyxU9Hzj72kmoyqXZIc4EiMdKfTk5nKJzMtq33ANFzp26e6bLOp3WotyC1Jo 40Uw== X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51Dard7dGSWw/gLLwCR6WjucajdLl2EGv8r5ngEG9daXR4E+/OBX AYkbZiikVeSMU1XlG+TJcTbRvUNa X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0VdZjXjdEwQEslxEKgC1SQWrbnf52F65L43KUwbjcyASTOgbpEIZkcJ4F131KrTL1FEvhiXpxJw== X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9941:: with SMTP id r1-v6mr8564861ljj.53.1536956142134; Fri, 14 Sep 2018 13:15:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.18] (bkp132.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl. [83.28.183.132]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v63-v6sm1373200lje.20.2018.09.14.13.15.40 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 14 Sep 2018 13:15:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/6] dt-bindings: ti-lmu: Remove LM3697 To: Pavel Machek , Dan Murphy Cc: robh+dt@kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lee.jones@linaro.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-leds@vger.kernel.org References: <20180911170825.17789-1-dmurphy@ti.com> <20180911170825.17789-2-dmurphy@ti.com> <20180911200530.GA28290@amd> <85ab3bf4-21d4-dda9-a7c8-5ed68f15c611@ti.com> <20180912214938.GA30654@amd> <7950fa32-c8f9-52bb-06b0-0c1cc93b6bc9@ti.com> <20180914081822.GA21830@amd> From: Jacek Anaszewski Message-ID: <9c14ee7c-f172-bb0c-d9a8-8aeee408f716@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 22:15:38 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180914081822.GA21830@amd> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. https://lwn.net/Articles/561462/ 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 (arch/arm/boot/dts/omap4-droid4-xt894.dts). Having the above it seems that there is no risk of breaking any users. > 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