On Fri, Feb 09, 2024 at 09:02:44AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 08/02/2024 19:48, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > Add initial device tree documentation for Maxim MAX6958/6959.
...
> Please describe the device, e.g. bus/interface.
OK.
...
> > +properties:
> > + compatible:
> > + const: maxim,max6959
>
> Your title said also max6958, so I would expect it to be here as well.
> Cam be followed by 6959 fallback compatible, if they are compatible.
Same question as I asked before, why should we have them separated?
The hardware features can be autodetected. What's the reason for (unneeded
in my opinion and duplicative) compatible?
...
> > + reg:
> > + maxItems: 1
>
> No power supplies? No reset pins?
No power supplies, no reset pins. At least there is no as such in
the datasheet. Do you see them there?
...
> > +examples:
> > + - |
> > + i2c {
> > + #address-cells = <1>;
>
> Use 4 spaces for example indentation. 2 is also fine.
Sure. Btw, this is copy&pasted from the existing YAML. Are you going to
fix them?
> > + #size-cells = <0>;
> > +
> > + max6959: max6959@38 {
>
> Node names should be generic. See also an explanation and list of
(Same remark: it's a pattern from the existing code. Are you going to fix
that?)
> examples (not exhaustive) in DT specification:
> https://devicetree-specification.readthedocs.io/en/latest/chapter2-devicetree-basics.html#generic-names-recommendation
> e.g. display-controller or display
Sure, thanks for review!
> > + compatible = "maxim,max6959";
> > + reg = <0x38>;
> > + };
> > + };
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
