Re: [PATCH/RFC v8 11/14] DT: Add documentation for the mfd Maxim max77693

[Jacek Anaszewski]

Hi Pavel,

On 12/01/2014 02:02 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > Is this one needed? Just ommit child note if it is not there.
> >
> > It is needed because you can have one led connected two both
> > outputs. This allows to describe such a design.
>
> Ok.
>
> > > > +- maxim,trigger-type : Array of trigger types in order: flash, torch
> > > > +	Possible trigger types:
> > > > +		0 - Rising edge of the signal triggers the flash/torch,
> > > > +		1 - Signal level controls duration of the flash/torch.
> > > > +- maxim,trigger : Array of flags indicating which trigger can activate given led
> > > > +	in order: fled1, fled2
> > > > +	Possible flag values (can be combined):
> > > > +		1 - FLASH pin of the chip,
> > > > +		2 - TORCH pin of the chip,
> > > > +		4 - software via I2C command.
> > >
> > > Is it good idea to have bitfields like this?
> > >
> > > Make these required properties of the subnode?
> >
> > This is related to a single property: trigger. I think that splitting
> > it to three properties would make unnecessary noise in the
> > binding.
>
> Well, maybe it is not that much noise, and you'll have useful names
> (not a bitfield).

I think we'd need an opinion of at least one more person :)

> Should these properties move to the LED subnode?

I would leave them device specific.

Regards,
Jacek
--
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/