Re: [PATCH v4 5/7] dt-bindings: ti-lmu: Modify dt bindings for the LM3633

[Rob Herring]

On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 08:38:35PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Wed 2018-10-24 09:35:06, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 11:23:28AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > On Tue 2018-10-23 12:06:21, Dan Murphy wrote:
> > > > The LM3633 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
> > > > features and those can be accomodated by a TI LMU framework.
> > > > 
> > > > The LM3633 dt binding needs to be moved from the ti-lmu.txt and a dedicated
> > > > LED dt binding needs to be added.  The new LM3633 LED dt binding will then
> > > > reside in the Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds directory and follow the
> > > > current LED and general bindings guidelines.
> > > 
> > > What?
> > > 
> > > >  .../devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-lm3633.txt  | 102 ++++++++++++++++++
> > > >  .../devicetree/bindings/mfd/ti-lmu.txt        |  48 ---------
> > > >  2 files changed, 102 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-)
> > > >  create mode 100644
> > > >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-lm3633.txt
> > > 
> > > > index 920f910be4e9..573e88578d3d 100644
> > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/ti-lmu.txt
> > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/ti-lmu.txt
> > > > @@ -7,7 +7,6 @@ TI LMU driver supports lighting devices below.
> > > >    LM3532       Backlight
> > > >    LM3631       Backlight and regulator
> > > >    LM3632       Backlight and regulator
> > > > -  LM3633       Backlight, LED and fault monitor
> > > >    LM3695       Backlight
> > > 
> > > Are you seriously proposing to take one binding and split it into 6
> > > copy&pasted ones?
> > > 
> > > That's not the way we do development. NAK.
> > > 
> > > We don't want to have copy & pasted code. We also don't want to have
> > > copy & pasted bindings. Nor changelogs, for that matter.
> > 
> > I looked at the LM3633 and LM3632 datasheets. They look quite different 
> > to me and should be separate IMO. Just looking at different LED 
> > functions and GPIO control lines is enough to make that determination. 
> > The LM3697 looks like a subset of LM3633 at least at a schematic 
> > diagram level, so maybe those can be shared.
> 
> Well, they have blocks in common, and are currently handled by one
> driver. Two .c files proposed here shared 80% code when I reviewed
> previous version. Original merge documentation is:
> 
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/fa.linux.kernel/hWvxahP7INw/Y2EDZmjoAQAJ
> 
> TI LMU(Lighting Management Unit) driver supports lighting devices
> below.
>  
>  	                 Enable pin  Backlights  HWMON  LEDs   Regulators
> 	                 ----------  ----------  -----  ----  ------------
> 		  LM3532       o           o         x     x        x
> 		  LM3631       o           o         x     x    5 regulators
> 		  LM3632       o           o         x     x    3 regulators
> 		  LM3633       o           o         o     o        x
> 		  LM3695       o           o         x     x        x
> 		  LM3697       o           o         o     x        x
> 
> 
> I thought I understood that table, but maybe I'm confused. Anyway,
> there seemed to be "enough" to share.

I don't think all the backlight blocks are the same. Some don't have 2 
ramp settings is what I looked at. I only skimmed thru the datasheets 
though. 
 
> > While we could litter the binding with conditions on properties 
> > depending on specific compatible strings (such as which GPIO properties 
> > apply to which compatible), that is going to be problematic down the 
> > line when we convert to json-schema[1].
> 
> Well, situation where different devices share common features /
> function blocks is going to be somehow common. Not sure how to solve
> it in json, maybe the properties can simply be marked optional?, but I
> guess it will need solving somehow.

There are ways to deal with some of that, but at some point when 
every property has different constraints based on compatibles at some 
point it is easier to just split them. We don't try to have all LED 
bindings in one doc even if they only use standard properties.

Rob