Re: [PATCH V3 3/3] devicetree: da9062: Add device tree bindings for DA9062 OnKey

[Lee Jones]

On Tue, 28 Jul 2015, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 09:40:19AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, 27 Jul 2015, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > 
> > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 03:43:00PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 05:17:41PM +0100, S Twiss wrote:
> > > > > From: S Twiss <stwiss.opensource@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > 
> > > > > Add device tree bindings for the DA9062 OnKey driver component
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Steve Twiss <stwiss.opensource@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > 
> > > > > ---
> > > > > Changes in V3:
> > > > >  - Child driver specifics separated out into separate document
> > > > >    in this case ../input/da9062-onkey.txt
> > > > > Changes in V2:
> > > > >  - No change
> > > > > 
> > > > > This patch applies against linux-next and next-20150708 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > >  .../devicetree/bindings/input/da9062-onkey.txt     | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/da9062.txt   |  3 ++
> > > > 
> > > > I dropped bits for mfd/da9062.txt, changed to mention both 9062 and
> > > > 9063, folded into the onkey patch and applied.
> > > 
> > > Argh, da9062 core is not in mainline yet... OK, below is the patch I
> > > had; if Lee does not pick it up I'll re-apply it when da9062 core hits
> > > mainline.
> > 
> > Hmm... that's annoying.  You've put the patch below your signature
> > '--', so my mailer cuts it off.
> 
> OK, sorry, I'll make sure to put in before the signature next time.

Appreciated.

> > [pasting]
> > 
> > > Input: add DA9062 OnKey capability to DA9063 OnKey driver
> > > 
> > > From: S Twiss <stwiss.opensource@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > 
> > > Add DA9062 OnKey support into the existing DA9063 OnKey driver component by
> > > using generic access tables for common register and bit mask definitions.
> > > 
> > > The following change will add generic register and bit mask support to the
> > > DA9063 OnKey.
> > > 
> > > The following alterations have been made to the DA9063 OnKey:
> > > 
> > > - Addition of a da906x_chip_config structure to hold all
> > >   generic registers and bitmasks for this type of OnKey component.
> > > - Addition of an struct of_device_id table for DA9063 and DA9062
> > >   defaults
> > > - Refactoring functions to use struct da9063_onkey accesses to generic
> > >   registers/masks instead of using defines from registers.h
> > > - Re-work of da9063_onkey_probe() to use of_match_node() and
> > >   dev_get_regmap() to provide initialisation of generic registers and
> > >   masks and access to regmap
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Steve Twiss <stwiss.opensource@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  .../devicetree/bindings/input/da9062-onkey.txt     |   32 +++++
> > >  drivers/input/misc/Kconfig                         |    8 +
> > >  drivers/input/misc/da9063_onkey.c                  |  129 ++++++++++++++++----
> > >  3 files changed, 140 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
> > >  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/da9062-onkey.txt
> >  
> > I'm confused.  What's the dependency?
> > 
> > There shouldn't be any issue applying input patches, just because
> > there isn't an MFD counterpart.  In fact, I would take prior
> > acceptance of the child into consideration (would be like a +1 vote)
> > when reviewing the MFD part.
> 
> It's this chunk:
> 
> +#include <linux/mfd/da9062/core.h>
> +#include <linux/mfd/da9062/registers.h>
> 
> and these header files are not in mainline yet.

Ah, thanks for the clarification.

I will apply the other patches.

> > One suggestion however, I would ask for the DT binding and the driver
> > to be separated, as per [0].
> > 
> > [0] Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.txt
> 
> Right, but that says about submitting patches, not applying them ;)
> 
> When I chatted with Grant he said that the policy of separating binding
> and code into separate patches is done so not to overwhelm devicetree
> list and that is is perfectly fine to actually apply them as a single
> commit. I try to combine them together so that when looking through
> history they show up as one.

Got you. :)

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org â Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/