Re: [PATCH v4 2/6] mfd: bd71837: Devicetree bindings for ROHM BD71837 PMIC

[Stephen Boyd]

Quoting Rob Herring (2018-05-31 07:07:24)
> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 5:23 AM, Matti Vaittinen
> <mazziesaccount@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 10:17:17AM +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> >> Hello Rob,
> >>
> >> Thanks for the review!
> >>
> >> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 10:01:29PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> >> > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 11:42:03AM +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> >> > > Document devicetree bindings for ROHM BD71837 PMIC MFD.
> >> > > + - interrupts            : The interrupt line the device is connected to.
> >> > > + - interrupt-controller  : Marks the device node as an interrupt controller.
> >> >
> >> > What sub blocks have interrupts?
> >>
> >> The PMIC can generate interrupts from events which cause it to reset.
> >> Eg, irq from watchdog line change, power button pushes, reset request
> >> via register interface etc. I don't know any generic handling for these
> >> interrupts. In "normal" use-case this PMIC is powering the processor
> >> where driver is running and I do not see reasonable handling because
> >> power-reset is going to follow the irq.
> >>
> >
> > Oh, but when reading this I understand that the interrupt-controller
> > property should at least be optional.
> 
> I don't think it should. The h/w either has an interrupt controller or
> it doesn't. My concern is you added it but nothing uses it which tells
> me your binding is incomplete. I'd rather see complete bindings even
> if you don't have drivers. For example, as-is, there's not really any
> need for the clocks child node. You can just make the parent a clock
> provider. But we need a complete picture of the h/w to make that
> determination.
> 

I don't see a reason to have the clk subnode either.