Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] dt-bindings: iio: magnetometer: ak8975: convert txt format to yaml

[Jonathan Albrieux <jonathan.albrieux@gmail.com>]

On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 03:22:07PM +0200, Stephan Gerhold wrote:
> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 02:43:51PM +0200, Jonathan Albrieux wrote:
> > Converts documentation from txt format to yaml.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jonathan Albrieux <jonathan.albrieux@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  .../bindings/iio/magnetometer/ak8975.txt      | 30 ---------
> >  .../bindings/iio/magnetometer/ak8975.yaml     | 66 +++++++++++++++++++
> >  2 files changed, 66 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
> >  delete mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/magnetometer/ak8975.txt
> >  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/magnetometer/ak8975.yaml
> > 
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/magnetometer/ak8975.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/magnetometer/ak8975.txt
> > deleted file mode 100644
> > index aa67ceb0d4e0..000000000000
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/magnetometer/ak8975.txt
> > +++ /dev/null
> > @@ -1,30 +0,0 @@
> > -* AsahiKASEI AK8975 magnetometer sensor
> > -
> > -Required properties:
> > -
> > -  - compatible : should be "asahi-kasei,ak8975"
> > -  - reg : the I2C address of the magnetometer
> > -
> > -Optional properties:
> > -
> > -  - gpios : should be device tree identifier of the magnetometer DRDY pin
> > -  - vdd-supply: an optional regulator that needs to be on to provide VDD
> > -  - mount-matrix: an optional 3x3 mounting rotation matrix
> > -
> > -Example:
> > -
> > -ak8975@c {
> > -        compatible = "asahi-kasei,ak8975";
> > -        reg = <0x0c>;
> > -        gpios = <&gpj0 7 0>;
> > -        vdd-supply = <&ldo_3v3_gnss>;
> > -        mount-matrix = "-0.984807753012208",  /* x0 */
> > -                       "0",                   /* y0 */
> > -                       "-0.173648177666930",  /* z0 */
> > -                       "0",                   /* x1 */
> > -                       "-1",                  /* y1 */
> > -                       "0",                   /* z1 */
> > -                       "-0.173648177666930",  /* x2 */
> > -                       "0",                   /* y2 */
> > -                       "0.984807753012208";   /* z2 */
> > -};
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/magnetometer/ak8975.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/magnetometer/ak8975.yaml
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..86e3efa693a8
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/magnetometer/ak8975.yaml
> > @@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
> > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause)
> > +%YAML 1.2
> > +---
> > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/iio/magnetometer/ak8975.yaml#
> > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
> > +
> > +title: AsahiKASEI AK8975 magnetometer sensor
> > +
> > +maintainers:
> > +  - can't find a mantainer, author is Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com>
> 
> Should probably add someone here, although I'm not sure who either.
> 

Yep I couldn't find a maintainer for that driver..what to do in this case?

> > +
> > +properties:
> > +  compatible:
> > +    enum:
> > +      - "asahi-kasei,ak8975"
> > +      - "ak8975"
> > +      - "asahi-kasei,ak8963"
> > +      - "ak8963"
> > +      - "asahi-kasei,ak09911"
> > +      - "ak09911"
> > +      - "asahi-kasei,ak09912"
> > +      - "ak09912"
> > +
> 
> I wonder if the ones without vendor prefix (asahi-kasei,) should be
> marked as deprecated somehow?
> 
> Looking at some other schemas I see either a "# deprecated" comment, or:
> 
> properties:
>   compatible:
>     oneOf:
>       - const: asahi-kasei,ak8975
>       - const: asahi-kasei,ak8963
>       - const: asahi-kasei,ak09911
>       - const: asahi-kasei,ak09912
>       - const: ak8975
>         deprecated: true
>       - const: ak8963
>         deprecated: true
>       - const: ak09911
>         deprecated: true
>       - const: ak09912
>         deprecated: true
> 
> (e.g. in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/samsung,odroid.yaml)
> I guess this one is preferred since it allows parsing those
> compatibles as deprecated?
> 

Ok I'll work on it

> > +  reg:
> > +    maxItems: 1
> > +    description: the I2C address of the magnetometer
> > +
> > +  gpios:
> > +    description: should be device tree identifier of the magnetometer DRDY pin
> > +
> > +  vdd-supply:
> > +    maxItems: 1
> > +    description: |
> > +      an optional regulator that needs to be on to provide VDD power to
> > +      the sensor.
> > +
> > +  mount-matrix:
> > +    description: an optional 3x3 mounting rotation matrix
> > +
> > +required:
> > +  - compatible
> > +  - reg
> > +
> > +examples:
> > +  - |
> > +    i2c@78b7000 {
> > +        reg = <0x78b6000 0x600>;
> > +        #address-cells = <1>;
> > +        #size-cells = <0>;
> > +
> > +        ak8975@c {
> 
> Per device tree specification this should preferably use a generic name
> describing the function of the device, i.e. magnetometer@c.
> 
> > +            compatible = "asahi-kasei,ak8975";
> > +            reg = <0x0c>;
> > +            gpios = <&gpj0 7 0>;
>

Yes it would be better, I'll work on that too
 
> I think using the dt-bindings constants for the GPIO flags is preferred
> now, i.e. gpios = <&gpj0 7 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>.
> 
> > +            vdd-supply = <&ldo_3v3_gnss>;
> > +            mount-matrix = "-0.984807753012208",  /* x0 */
> > +                           "0",                   /* y0 */
> > +                           "-0.173648177666930",  /* z0 */
> > +                           "0",                   /* x1 */
> > +                           "-1",                  /* y1 */
> > +                           "0",                   /* z1 */
> > +                           "-0.173648177666930",  /* x2 */
> > +                           "0",                   /* y2 */
> > +                           "0.984807753012208";   /* z2 */
> > +        };
> > +    };
> > -- 
> > 2.17.1

Thank you for having took the time to review, will work on edits right now.
I just have a question: by creating the new patchset how can I deal with
the "Reviewed by"? It's the first patch I submit and still haven't dealt
with the full process,

Best regards,
Jonathan Albrieux