On 01/27/2013 01:57 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
> Add device tree support for the TI PMIC TPS65090.
> The device can be registered through platform or DT.
>
> Add device tree binding document for this device.
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/tps65090.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/tps65090.txt
> +Required properties:
> +- compatible: "ti,tps65090"
> +- reg: I2C slave address
> +- interrupts: the interrupt outputs of the controller
> +- regulators: A node that houses a sub-node for each regulator within the
> + device. Each sub-node is identified using the node's name (or the deprecated
> + regulator-compatible property if present), with valid values listed below.
It may not be worth mentioning deprecated stuff in a new binding doc.
> + The content of each sub-node is defined by the standard binding for
> + regulators; see regulator.txt.
> + dcdc[1-3], fet[1-7] and ldo[1-2] respectively.
> +- vsys[1-3]-supply: The input supply for DCDC[1-3] respectively.
> +- infet[1-7]-supply: The input supply for FET[1-7] respectively.
> +- vsys_l[1-2]-supply: The input supply for LDO[1-2] respectively.
_ in a DT property name is unusual; perhaps use - instead?
> +Optional properties:
> +- ti,enable-ext-control: This is applicable for DCDC1, DCDC2 and DCDC3.
> + If DCDCs are externally controlled then this property should be there.
> +- gpio: This is applicable for DCDC1, DCDC2 and DCDC3. If DCDCs are
> + extrenally controlled and if it is from GPIO then gpio number should
s/extrenally/externally/
GPIO should always be capitalized it text.
"gpio" is a rather generic property name. "dcdc-gpios" or
"dcdc-ext-control-gpios" might be better?
> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/tps65090.c b/drivers/mfd/tps65090.c
> @@ -155,9 +188,22 @@ static int tps65090_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
> struct tps65090 *tps65090;
> int ret;
>
> - if (!pdata) {
> + if (client->dev.of_node) {
> + const struct of_device_id *match;
> +
> + match = of_match_device(of_match_ptr(tps65090_of_match),
> + &client->dev);
> + if (!match) {
> + dev_err(&client->dev, "No match device found\n");
> + return -ENODEV;
> + }
Is that useful; "match" doesn't seem to be used anywhere, and this
driver won't be instantiated through DT unless the driver/I2C core found
a matching entry in tps65090_of_match already.
> + if (!pdata && client->dev.of_node)
> + pdata = of_get_tps65090_platform_data(&client->dev);
> + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(pdata)) {
> dev_err(&client->dev, "tps65090 requires platform data\n");
> - return -EINVAL;
> + return (pdata) ? PTR_ERR(pdata) : -EINVAL;
> }
Does the driver really /require/ pdata?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
