On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 01:14:33PM -0600, Dan Murphy wrote: > Matti > > On 11/1/19 6:32 AM, Matti Vaittinen wrote: > > Document ROHM BD71828 PMIC LED driver device tree bindings. > > > > Signed-off-by: Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > > > Changes from v2 - new patch > > > > .../bindings/leds/rohm,leds-bd71828.yaml | 46 +++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 46 insertions(+) > > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/rohm,leds-bd71828.yaml > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/rohm,leds-bd71828.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/rohm,leds-bd71828.yaml > > new file mode 100644 > > index 000000000000..d8aeac9911ef > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/rohm,leds-bd71828.yaml > > @@ -0,0 +1,46 @@ > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > +%YAML 1.2 > > +--- > > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/leds/rohm,leds-bd71828.yaml# > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > > + > > +title: ROHM BD71828 Power Management Integrated Circuit LED driver > > + > > +maintainers: > > + - Jacek Anaszewski <jacek.anaszewski@xxxxxxxxx> > > + - Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx> > > + - Dan Murphy <dmurphy@xxxxxx> > > + - Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx> > > + - Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> > I believe you are the maintainer of this driver not the maintainers Right, should have been clearer in my other response. Put owner/maintainer of the device binding, not subsystem. > > + > > +description: | > > + This module is part of the ROHM BD71828 MFD device. For more details > > + see Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/rohm,bd71828-pmic.yaml. > > + > > + The LED controller is represented as a sub-node of the PMIC node on the device > > + tree. > > + > > + The device has two LED outputs referred as GRNLED and AMBLED in data-sheet. > > + > > +properties: > > + compatible: > > + const: rohm,bd71828-led > > + > > +patternProperties: > > + "^led-[1-2]$": > > + type: object > > + description: > > + Properties for a single LED. Nodes must be named as led-1 and led-2. > > Why is this required? Can't we use the reg as the number and then we can > use standard node labels > > like led@<reg value>. Then we can check in the code to make sure that the > output is not out of bounds. > > > + properties: > > + #$ref: "common.yaml#" > > + function: > > + description: > > + Purpose of LED as defined in dt-bindings/leds/common.h > > + $ref: "/schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/string" > > + color: > > + description: > > + LED colour as defined in dt-bindings/leds/common.h > > s/colour/color > > But again I believe it is indicated above that the LEDs are either going to > be green or amber. Unless they can be any color. > > Are there plans to make sure that the color is either green or amber in the > code? I don't see a patch for the code in this series > > > + $ref: "/schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32" > > + > > +required: > > + - compatible > > Is there an example of the node and properties? For MFDs, I prefer a complete example in the MFD binding doc. We need it complete to validate the example. Rob
