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=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS 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 AE2ECC46475 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 18:07:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6546A20834 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 18:07:43 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 6546A20834 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=ti.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 S1727759AbeJZClb (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Oct 2018 22:41:31 -0400 Received: from lelv0142.ext.ti.com ([198.47.23.249]:45320 "EHLO lelv0142.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727588AbeJZClb (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Oct 2018 22:41:31 -0400 Received: from fllv0035.itg.ti.com ([10.64.41.0]) by lelv0142.ext.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id w9PI7Z7p101387; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 13:07:35 -0500 Received: from DLEE104.ent.ti.com (dlee104.ent.ti.com [157.170.170.34]) by fllv0035.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id w9PI7ZLG077535 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 25 Oct 2018 13:07:35 -0500 Received: from DLEE109.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.41) by DLEE104.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.34) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1466.3; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 13:07:34 -0500 Received: from dlep33.itg.ti.com (157.170.170.75) by DLEE109.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.41) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA) id 15.1.1466.3 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 13:07:34 -0500 Received: from [172.22.66.177] (ileax41-snat.itg.ti.com [10.172.224.153]) by dlep33.itg.ti.com (8.14.3/8.13.8) with ESMTP id w9PI7YKJ008151; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 13:07:34 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/7] dt-bindings: ti-lmu: Modify dt bindings for the LM3697 To: Rob Herring CC: Pavel Machek , , , , , , References: <20181023170623.31820-1-dmurphy@ti.com> <20181023170623.31820-2-dmurphy@ti.com> <20181024090421.GB24997@amd> <20181024145434.GC9327@bogus> From: Dan Murphy Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 13:07:25 -0500 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: <20181024145434.GC9327@bogus> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e1e8a2fd-e40a-4ac6-ac9b-f7e9cc9ee180 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Rob On 10/24/2018 09:54 AM, Rob Herring wrote: > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 07:07:57AM -0500, Dan Murphy wrote: >> Pavel >> >> On 10/24/2018 04:04 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: >>> Hi! >>> >>>> The LM3697 is a single function LED driver. The single function LED >>>> driver needs to reside in the LED directory as a dedicated LED driver >>>> and not as a MFD device. The device does have common brightness and ramp >>> >>> So it is single function LED driver. That does not mean it can not >>> share bindings with the rest. Where the bindings live is not imporant. >>> >> >> It can share bindings that are correctly done, not ones that are incomplete and incorrect. >> >> Where bindings live is important to new Linux kernel developers and product >> developers looking for the proper documentation on the H/W bindings. >> >>>> reside in the Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds directory and follow the >>>> current LED and general bindings guidelines. >>> >>> What you forgot to tell us in the changelog: >> >> I can add this to the changelog. >> >>> >>>> +Optional child properties: >>>> + - runtime-ramp-up-msec: Current ramping from one brightness level to >>>> + the a higher brightness level. >>>> + Range from 2048 us - 117.44 s >>> >>> The other binding uses "ramp-up-msec". Tell us why you are changing this, or >>> better don't change things needlessly. >>> >>> We don't want to be using "runtime-ramp-up-msec" for one device and >>> "ramp-up-msec" for the other. >> >> This is another example of how the original bindings were incorrect and misleading. >> >> The LM3697 have 2 ramp implementations that can be used. >> >> Startup/Shutdown ramp and Runtime Ramp. Same Ramp rates different registers and >> different end user experience. >> >> So having a single node call ramp-up-msec is misleading and it does not >> indicate what the H/W will do. > > The existing ones aren't documented (present in the example is not > documented). This seems like something that should be common rather than > TI specific. Though it also seems more like something the user would > want to control (i.e. sysfs) rather than fixed in DT. > Changing the runtime ramping or startup/shutdown ramping could also be done via sysfs. I am not dedicated to having it in the DT file I was following prior art. Jacek Do you have an opinion on this? Dan > Rob > -- ------------------ Dan Murphy