Hi Lee,
On 30/03/20 8:46 am, Lee Jones wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2020, saravanan sekar wrote:
On 27/03/20 9:00 am, Lee Jones wrote:
On Sun, 22 Mar 2020, Saravanan Sekar wrote:
Add device tree binding information for mp2629 mfd driver.
Signed-off-by: Saravanan Sekar <sravanhome@xxxxxxxxx>
---
.../devicetree/bindings/mfd/mps,mp2629.yaml | 60 +++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 60 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/mps,mp2629.yaml
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/mps,mp2629.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/mps,mp2629.yaml
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..314309ea91ac
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/mps,mp2629.yaml
@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+%YAML 1.2
+---
+$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/mfd/mps,mp2629.yaml#
+$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
Are these links supposed to work?
Not really, but as far my understanding needed for dt-bindings check
Rob, why are these here if they just result in 404s?
+examples:
+ - |
+ #include <dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/irq.h>
+ #include <dt-bindings/input/linux-event-codes.h>
+ i2c {
i2c@0x????????
Its a I2C controller node, I don't think address is needed. Mention like
this my previous other driver patches,
This doesn't sound right.
How do you control/operate the controller?
Surely you read/write from/to registers?
Indeed, but each SoC will have different address so which address to
mention here.
For me it should be like &i2c {}, anyhow I respect maintainers review (I
can give RPi I2c bus address used for testing)
and wait for Rob's reply
dt_binding_check is also passed
+ #address-cells = <1>;
+ #size-cells = <0>;
+
+ pmic@4b {
+ compatible = "mps,mp2629";
+ reg = <0x4b>;
+
+ interrupt-controller;
+ interrupt-parent = <&gpio2>;
+ #interrupt-cells = <2>;
+ interrupts = <3 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
+ };
+ };
