Re: [PATCH v2] mfd: DT bindings for the palmas family MFD

From: Stephen Warren
Date: Wed Jun 05 2013 - 13:13:55 EST

On 06/04/2013 02:41 AM, J Keerthy wrote:
> From: Graeme Gregory <gg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 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.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at