On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Rob, > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 02:41:33PM +0100, Kieran Bingham wrote: >>> The power domain must be specified to bring the device out of module >>> standby. Document this in the example provided, so that new additions >>> are not missed. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Kieran Bingham <kieran@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/renesas,fcp.txt | 1 + >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/renesas,fcp.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/renesas,fcp.txt >>> index 271dcfdb5a76..6a55f5215221 100644 >>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/renesas,fcp.txt >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/renesas,fcp.txt >>> @@ -31,4 +31,5 @@ Device node example >>> compatible = "renesas,r8a7795-fcpv", "renesas,fcpv"; >>> reg = <0 0xfea2f000 0 0x200>; >>> clocks = <&cpg CPG_MOD 602>; >>> + power-domains = <&sysc R8A7795_PD_A3VP>; >> >> This needs to be documented above too, not just the example. > > Why? Power domains are an optional feature, whose presence depends > on the platform, not on the device. Examples are not documentation. The binding should stand on its own without the example. How did I know this is optional unless you document it as optional? How many power domains does the device have? > Hence "power-domains" properties may appear in any device node. > Having to document them in every single binding document is overkill. We do it for everything else pretty much. There's some exceptions like "status". I agree that we get a bunch of redundancy with random text describing the properties. I'm all for a structured syntax that can distill the device bindings down to the pertainent information. If only someone proposed using yaml or something... Rob
