Hi de Ho Peeps, On Tue, 2020-01-07 at 09:37 -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 7:01 AM Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > On Fri, 27 Dec 2019, Matti Vaittinen wrote: > > > > > Convert ROHM bd71837 and bd71847 PMIC binding text docs to yaml. > > > Split > > > the binding document to two separate documents (own documents for > > > BD71837 > > > and BD71847) as they have different amount of regulators. This > > > way we can > > > better enforce the node name check for regulators. ROHM is also > > > providing > > > BD71850 - which is almost identical to BD71847 - main difference > > > is some > > > initial regulator states. The BD71850 can be driven by same > > > driver and it > > > has same buck/LDO setup as BD71847 - add it to BD71847 binding > > > document and > > > introduce compatible for it. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > changes since v1: > > > - constrains to short and long presses. > > > - reworded commit message to shorten a line exceeding 75 chars > > > - added 'additionalProperties: false' > > > - removed 'clock-names' from example node > > > > > > .../bindings/mfd/rohm,bd71837-pmic.txt | 90 ------- > > > .../bindings/mfd/rohm,bd71837-pmic.yaml | 236 > > > ++++++++++++++++++ > > > .../bindings/mfd/rohm,bd71847-pmic.yaml | 222 > > > ++++++++++++++++ > > > .../regulator/rohm,bd71837-regulator.txt | 162 ------------ > > > .../regulator/rohm,bd71837-regulator.yaml | 103 ++++++++ > > > .../regulator/rohm,bd71847-regulator.yaml | 97 +++++++ > > > > Can you split these out per-subsystem, so that I can apply the MFD > > changes please? > > That's not going to work any more. The MFD binding references the > child bindings and the complete example(s) resides in the MFD > binding. So is it Ok to take all of these in MFD tree - or how should this be done? Can Rob get them in after acks from Lee/Mark? Br, Matti Vaittinen
