[PATCH 01/22] dt-bindings: Permit platform devices in the trivial-devices bindings

[PATCH 01/22] dt-bindings: Permit platform devices in the trivial-devices bindings

[Sergey.Semin]

From: Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@baikalelectronics.ru>

Indeed there are a log of trivial devices amongst platform controllers,
IP-blocks, etc. If they satisfy the trivial devices bindings requirements
like consisting of a compatible field, an address and possibly an interrupt
line why not having them in the generic trivial-devices bindings file?
We only need to accordingly alter the bindings title and description nodes.

Signed-off-by: Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@baikalelectronics.ru>
Signed-off-by: Alexey Malahov <Alexey.Malahov@baikalelectronics.ru>
Cc: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>
Cc: Paul Burton <paulburton@kernel.org>
Cc: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/trivial-devices.yaml | 8 ++++----
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/trivial-devices.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/trivial-devices.yaml
index 978de7d37c66..ce0149b4b6ed 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/trivial-devices.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/trivial-devices.yaml
@@ -4,15 +4,15 @@
 $id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/trivial-devices.yaml#
 $schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
 
-title: Trivial I2C and SPI devices that have simple device tree bindings
+title: Trivial I2C, SPI and platform devices having simple device tree bindings
 
 maintainers:
   - Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
 
 description: |
-  This is a list of trivial I2C and SPI devices that have simple device tree
-  bindings, consisting only of a compatible field, an address and possibly an
-  interrupt line.
+  This is a list of trivial I2C, SPI and platform devices that have simple
+  device tree bindings, consisting only of a compatible field, an address and
+  possibly an interrupt line.
 
   If a device needs more specific bindings, such as properties to
   describe some aspect of it, there needs to be a specific binding
-- 
2.25.1

Re: [PATCH 01/22] dt-bindings: Permit platform devices in the trivial-devices bindings

[Sergey Semin]

On Fri, Mar 06, 2020 at 07:56:51AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 6:48 AM <Sergey.Semin@baikalelectronics.ru> wrote:
> >
> > From: Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@baikalelectronics.ru>
> >
> > Indeed there are a log of trivial devices amongst platform controllers,
> > IP-blocks, etc. If they satisfy the trivial devices bindings requirements
> > like consisting of a compatible field, an address and possibly an interrupt
> > line why not having them in the generic trivial-devices bindings file?
> 
> NAK.
> 
> Do you have some documentation on what a platform bus is? Last I
> checked, that's a Linux thing.
> 
> If anything, we'd move toward getting rid of trivial-devices.yaml. For
> example, I'd like to start defining the node name which wouldn't work
> for trivial-devices.yaml unless we split by class.
> 
> Rob

Hello Rob,

Understood. I thought the trivial-devices bindings was to collect all
the devices with simple bindings, but it turns out to be a stub for
devices, which just aren't described by a dedicated bindings file.
I'll resubmit the v2 version with no changes to the trivial-devices.yaml,
but with CDMM/CPC dt-nodes having yaml-based bindings.

Regards,
-Sergey

Re: [PATCH 01/22] dt-bindings: Permit platform devices in the trivial-devices bindings

[Rob Herring]

On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 6:48 AM <Sergey.Semin@baikalelectronics.ru> wrote:
>
> From: Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@baikalelectronics.ru>
>
> Indeed there are a log of trivial devices amongst platform controllers,
> IP-blocks, etc. If they satisfy the trivial devices bindings requirements
> like consisting of a compatible field, an address and possibly an interrupt
> line why not having them in the generic trivial-devices bindings file?

NAK.

Do you have some documentation on what a platform bus is? Last I
checked, that's a Linux thing.

If anything, we'd move toward getting rid of trivial-devices.yaml. For
example, I'd like to start defining the node name which wouldn't work
for trivial-devices.yaml unless we split by class.

Rob

[PATCH 01/22] dt-bindings: Permit platform devices in the trivial-devices bindings

[Sergey.Semin]

From: Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@baikalelectronics.ru>

Indeed there are a log of trivial devices amongst platform controllers,
IP-blocks, etc. If they satisfy the trivial devices bindings requirements
like consisting of a compatible field, an address and possibly an interrupt
line why not having them in the generic trivial-devices bindings file?
We only need to accordingly alter the bindings title and description nodes.

Signed-off-by: Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@baikalelectronics.ru>
Signed-off-by: Alexey Malahov <Alexey.Malahov@baikalelectronics.ru>
Cc: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>
Cc: Paul Burton <paulburton@kernel.org>
Cc: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/trivial-devices.yaml | 8 ++++----
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/trivial-devices.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/trivial-devices.yaml
index 978de7d37c66..ce0149b4b6ed 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/trivial-devices.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/trivial-devices.yaml
@@ -4,15 +4,15 @@
 $id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/trivial-devices.yaml#
 $schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
 
-title: Trivial I2C and SPI devices that have simple device tree bindings
+title: Trivial I2C, SPI and platform devices having simple device tree bindings
 
 maintainers:
   - Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
 
 description: |
-  This is a list of trivial I2C and SPI devices that have simple device tree
-  bindings, consisting only of a compatible field, an address and possibly an
-  interrupt line.
+  This is a list of trivial I2C, SPI and platform devices that have simple
+  device tree bindings, consisting only of a compatible field, an address and
+  possibly an interrupt line.
 
   If a device needs more specific bindings, such as properties to
   describe some aspect of it, there needs to be a specific binding
-- 
2.25.1