Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] dt: bindings: as3645a: Update dt node example with standard

[Dan Murphy]

Laurent

On 12/13/2017 02:09 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Dan,
> 
> Thank you for the patch.
> 
> On Tuesday, 12 December 2017 23:50:23 EET Dan Murphy wrote:
>> Update the DT binding to remove the device name from
>> the DT parent node as well as removing the device
>> name from the label.  The LED label will be generated
>> based off the id name stored in the local driver so
>> the LED function can be indicated in the label DT
>> entry.
>>
>> Also removed the indentation on the example.
> 
> This makes the patch a bit harder to review and seems to be a matter of style.
> 

I debated whether to remove the extra tabs.  The changes below came from comments
from a recent LED driver I submitted.

>> Signed-off-by: Dan Murphy <dmurphy@xxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  .../devicetree/bindings/leds/ams,as3645a.txt       | 36 ++++++++++---------
>>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/ams,as3645a.txt
>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/ams,as3645a.txt index
>> fc7f5f9f234c..122aa7165cf3 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/ams,as3645a.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/ams,as3645a.txt
>> @@ -58,22 +58,22 @@ label		: The label of the indicator LED.
> 
> I believe you should expand the documentation of the label property to detail 
> how it should be formed. It's nice to update the example, but the bindings 
> should be understandable without it.

OK. I will add a reference to Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/common.txt

label formation will be undergoing some changes.  I wanted to make sure there were
some good examples in the LED tree for other developers to reference.

> 
>>  Example
>>  =======
>>
>> -	as3645a@30 {
>> -		compatible = "ams,as3645a";
>> -		#address-cells = <1>;
>> -		#size-cells = <0>;
>> -		reg = <0x30>;
>> -		flash@0 {
>> -			reg = <0x0>;
>> -			flash-timeout-us = <150000>;
>> -			flash-max-microamp = <320000>;
>> -			led-max-microamp = <60000>;
>> -			ams,input-max-microamp = <1750000>;
>> -			label = "as3645a:flash";
>> -		};
>> -		indicator@1 {
>> -			reg = <0x1>;
>> -			led-max-microamp = <10000>;
>> -			label = "as3645a:indicator";
>> -		};
>> +led-controller@30 {
> 
> This change looks fine to me.
> 
>> +	compatible = "ams,as3645a";
>> +	#address-cells = <1>;
>> +	#size-cells = <0>;
>> +	reg = <0x30>;
>> +	led@0 {
> 
> What's the rationale for changing the node name here ? It should be explained 
> in the commit message, and in the DT bindings documentation.

In my patch to the DT maintainers Rob H indicated 

"Actually, it should be led-controller and led or leds be used for the
LED child nodes (and gpio-led or pwd-led bindings)"

Here is the patch that the node naming conventions took place

https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10093757


> 
>> +		reg = <0x0>;
>> +		flash-timeout-us = <150000>;
>> +		flash-max-microamp = <320000>;
>> +		led-max-microamp = <60000>;
>> +		ams,input-max-microamp = <1750000>;
>> +		label = "flash";
>>  	};
>> +	led@1 {
>> +		reg = <0x1>;
>> +		led-max-microamp = <10000>;
>> +		label = "indicator";
>> +	};
>> +};
> 


-- 
------------------
Dan Murphy