Re: [PATCHv4] media: i2c/adp1653: devicetree support for adp1653

From: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
To: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@dowhile0.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
	pali.rohar@gmail.com, Sebastian Reichel <sre@debian.org>,
	Sebastian Reichel <sre@ring0.de>,
	kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	"linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" <linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>,
	Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@kernel.org>,
	Aaro Koskinen <aaro.koskinen@iki.fi>,
	ivo.g.dimitrov.75@gmail.com, patrikbachan@gmail.com,
	Kumar Gala <galak@codeaurora.org>,
	Benoit Cousson <bcousson@baylibre.com>,
	sakari.ailus@iki.fi, m.chehab@samsung.com,
	"devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4] media: i2c/adp1653: devicetree support for adp1653
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 10:21:29 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150403082129.GA10671@amd> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABxcv=nfg_D9HvXUd4PBFJ5a1XST=PCDEZCjkTtbu_u7cc1+ug@mail.gmail.com>

Hi!

> > Fixed feedback by Sakari.
> >
> > Please apply,
> 
> There is no need to ask for patches to be applied IMHO. It is expected
> that people post patches wanting them to be applied unless there is an
> RFC prefix in the subject or say explicitly that the patch is for
> testing and should not be picked.

See history of this patch.

> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/i2c/adp1653.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/i2c/adp1653.txt
> 
> When adding DT bindings, the Documentation portion should be in a
> separate patch and should come in the series before the patch
> implementing the binding. That makes the change easier to review,
> please take a look to points 1 and 3 in
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.txt.

Because actual patch at the end of email is too much eye clutter for
the poor device tree people, I can prepare nice series... producing
more work for me and more noise on the lists? No, thanks.

> > +Required Properties:
> > +
> > +  - compatible: Must contain be "adi,adp1653"
> > +
> > +  - reg: I2C slave address
> > +
> > +  - gpios: References to the GPIO that controls the power for the chip.
> 
> The convention nowadays is to not use unnamed DT properties for GPIOs
> but instead use a prefix that explains what those GPIOs are used for.
> So something like "power-gpios" or "power-gpio" (if there is only one
> GPIO) will be more suitable. Please take a look to
> Documentation/gpio/board.txt for more details.

Ok. Actually, reading docs below, "power-gpio" will not work, and it
needs to be "power-gpios", right?

> > +       if (!of_find_property(node, "gpios", NULL)) {
> > +               dev_err(&client->dev, "No gpio node\n");
> > +               return -EINVAL;
> > +       }
> > +
> > +       pd->power_gpio = of_get_gpio_flags(node, 0, &flags);
> 
> The old integer-based GPIO interface is deprecated and we want to get
> rid of it so please use the descriptor-based for new code. For example
> you want to use gpiod_get() instead of of_get_gpio_flags().
> Documentation/gpio/gpio.txt describes the new interface.

Ok.
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html