On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 02:15:35PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 11:05:12AM -0700, Mike Turquette wrote: > > Quoting Soren Brinkmann (2013-09-18 15:43:38) > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/silabs,si570.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/silabs,si570.txt > > > new file mode 100644 > > > index 0000000..7ab5c8b > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/silabs,si570.txt > > > @@ -0,0 +1,38 @@ > > > +Binding for Silicon Labs 570, 571, 598 and 599 programmable > > > +I2C clock generators. > > > + > > > +Reference > > > +This binding uses the common clock binding[1]. Details about the devices can be > > > +found in the data sheets[2][3]. > > > + > > > +[1] Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/clock-bindings.txt > > > +[2] Si570/571 Data Sheet > > > + http://www.silabs.com/Support%20Documents/TechnicalDocs/si570.pdf > > > +[3] Si598/599 Data Sheet > > > + http://www.silabs.com/Support%20Documents/TechnicalDocs/si598-99.pdf > > > + > > > +Required properties: > > > + - compatible: Shall be one of "silabs,si570", "silabs,si571", > > > + "silabs,si598", "silabs,si599" > > > + - reg: I2C device address. > > > + - #clock-cells: From common clock bindings: Shall be 0. > > > + - factory-fout: Factory set default frequency. This frequency is part specific. > > > + The correct frequency for the part used has to be provided in > > > + order to generate the correct output frequencies. For more > > > + details, please refer to the data sheet. > > > + > > > +Optional properties: > > > + - clock-output-names: From common clock bindings. Recommended to be "si570". > > > + - clock-frequency: Output frequency to generate. This defines the output > > > + frequency set during boot. It can be reprogrammed during > > > + runtime using the common clock framework. > > > + - temperature-stability-7ppm: Indicate a device with a temperature stability > > > + of 7ppm > > > > Some DT binding bike-shedding: > > > > Should this be "temperature-stability-ppm = <7>;" ? Do you think that > > this value might change in the future? > > > Valid values are 7, 20, and 50 as far as I know. Problem is that the value is > not used directly, but only to hint that a specific set of registers shall be > used. > > Given that, it may in fact be better to use an explicit number. Even though the > two register sets are specified by <7> in one case and <20,50> in the other > today, there may at some point be yet another value which might use the 7 ppm > register set or the 20/50 ppm register set ... or yet another register set. > An explicit number would cover all future accuracy ranges, not just the > existing ones. Okay, I'm convinced. Changing that, I'd also make it a mandatory property. Sören -- 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
