Hello Again Rob, And thanks again. On Tue, 2019-11-05 at 14:43 -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 01:31:03PM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote: > > ROHM BD71828 Power management IC integrates 7 buck converters, 7 > > LDOs, > > a real-time clock (RTC), 3 GPO/regulator control pins, HALL input > > and a 32.768 kHz clock gate. > > > > Document the dt bindings drivers are using. > > > > Signed-off-by: Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > > > Changes from v2 - my first encounter with yaml :/ > > > > .../bindings/mfd/rohm,bd71828-pmic.yaml | 249 > > ++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 249 insertions(+) > > create mode 100644 > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/rohm,bd71828-pmic.yaml > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/rohm,bd71828- > > pmic.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/rohm,bd71828- > > pmic.yaml > > new file mode 100644 > > index 000000000000..b2a88f6e1bb7 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/rohm,bd71828-pmic.yaml > > @@ -0,0 +1,249 @@ > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) > > for new bindings. Linus Walleij already notified me about this. I just wondered why this is not reflected in: LICENSES/preferred/GPL-2.0 which seems to state: Valid-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 Valid-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only Valid-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ Valid-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later SPDX-URL: https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-2.0.html Usage-Guide: To use this license in source code, put one of the following SPDX tag/value pairs into a comment according to the placement guidelines in the licensing rules documentation. For 'GNU General Public License (GPL) version 2 only' use: SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 or SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.4-rc5/source/LICENSES/preferred/GPL-2.0 I'll change the SPDX for new files for next version. > > > +%YAML 1.2 > > +--- > > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/mfd/rohm,bd71828-pmic.yaml# > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > > + > > +title: ROHM BD71828 Power Management Integrated Circuit bindings > > + > > +maintainers: > > + - Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> > > + - Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> > > + - Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> > > Don't list me or Mark here. I maintain everything... Ok. So I'll add myself then. Although I am by no means an expert what comes to binding schemas. I know the device and driver though. > > + > > + clock-output-names: > > + description: > > + Should contain name for output clock. > > Need to document what the name is. Though, with only 1 clock, not > that > useful. Hmmm. I thought this would depend on rest of the system's DT. Why should it be same on each board? (I can drop this out though). > > + - | > > + #include <dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/irq.h> > > + #include <dt-bindings/leds/common.h> > > + i2c { > > 'make dt_binding_check' reports an error building this, but I'm not > seeing where it is: > > Error: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/rohm,bd71828- > pmic.example.dts:155.36-37 syntax error > FATAL ERROR: Unable to parse input tree I guess it is the LED function definition. Those function/colour bindings were only added in 5.4-rc1. Do you have them defined in your build environment at /include/dt-bindings/leds/common.h? Rest of the comments are clear to me :) Br, Matti Vaittinen > -- > > Matti Vaittinen, Linux device drivers > > ROHM Semiconductors, Finland SWDC > > Kiviharjunlenkki 1E > > 90220 OULU > > FINLAND > > > > ~~~ "I don't think so," said Rene Descartes. Just then he vanished > > ~~~ > > Simon says - in Latin please. > > ~~~ "non cogito me" dixit Rene Descarte, deinde evanescavit ~~~ > > Thanks to Simon Glass for the translation =]
