Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] power: reset: document LTC2952 poweroff support

[Frans Klaver]

On 9 October 2014 19:32:46 CEST, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 05:09:36PM +0100, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 04:07:56PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> > 
>> > On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 03:50:42PM +0100, Frans Klaver wrote:
>> > > From: Renà Moll <linux@xxxxxxxxx>
>> > > 
>> > > Signed-off-by: Renà Moll <linux@xxxxxxxxx>
>> > > Signed-off-by: Tjerk Hofmeijer <tjerk.hofmeijer@xxxxxxxxx>
>> > > Signed-off-by: Frans Klaver <frans.klaver@xxxxxxxxx>
>> > > ---
>> > >  .../bindings/power/reset/ltc2952-poweroff.txt      | 31
>++++++++++++++++++++++
>> > >  1 file changed, 31 insertions(+)
>> > >  create mode 100644
>Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/reset/ltc2952-poweroff.txt
>> > > 
>> > > diff --git
>a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/reset/ltc2952-poweroff.txt
>b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/reset/ltc2952-poweroff.txt
>> > > new file mode 100644
>> > > index 0000000..c3f3d9e
>> > > --- /dev/null
>> > > +++
>b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/reset/ltc2952-poweroff.txt
>> > > @@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
>> > > +Binding for the LTC2952 PowerPath controller
>> > > +
>> > > +This chip is used to externally trigger a system shut down. Once
>the trigger
>> > > +has been sent, the chips watchdog has to be reset to gracefully
>shut down.
>> > 
>> > s/chips/chip's/
>> > 
>> > > If +the Linux systems decides to shut down, it powers off the
>platform
>> > > via the +poweroff signal.
>> > 
>> > This sentence can go; the binding should describe the hardware
>rather
>> > than the Linux behaviour.
>> > 
>> Maybe find an operating system independent wording and describe what
>the
>> implementation should do. Or is that out of scope as well ?
>
>Something like "The platform can be powered off via the poweroff
>signal"
>would be OK. So long as it's not a description of Linux internals
>that's
>fine. 
>
>Ideally the binding wouldn't state how the OS should use the device
>either. So if bindings can be worded w.r.t. possible uses of a device
>rather than specific users, that would be preferable unless the entire
>point of the binding is to specify a very specific use.

Alright, that makes sense.

Thanks, 
Frans 
G
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/