[PATCH linux dev-4.10 v5 1/4] dt-bindings: i2c: Document the IBM CCF power supply version 1

[Eddie James]

On 08/14/2017 02:33 AM, Andrew Jeffery wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-08-11 at 12:56 -0500, Eddie James wrote:
>>> From: "Edward A. James" <eajames at us.ibm.com>
>>   
>>> Signed-off-by: Edward A. James <eajames at us.ibm.com>
>> ---
>>   .../devicetree/bindings/i2c/ibm,cffps1.txt          | 21
> +++++++++++++++++++++
>>   1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)
>>   create mode 100644
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/ibm,cffps1.txt
>>   
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/ibm,cffps1.txt
> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/ibm,cffps1.txt
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..f68a0a6
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/ibm,cffps1.txt
>> @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
>> +Device-tree bindings for IBM Common Form Factor Power Supply Version
> 1
>> +------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
>> +
>> +Required properties:
>> + - compatible = "ibm,cffps1";
>>> + - reg = < I2C bus address >;		: Address of the
> power supply on the
>>> +					  I2C bus.
> Should we define properties for these registers?
>
> * OPERATION
> * ON_OFF_CONFIG
> * SYS_CONFIG

We could I suppose. I don't see why though; is it normal to document 
specific registers on devices? And why just those ones? The driver 
doesn't use them. Presumably someone who wants to use them can look at 
the spec.

Thanks for the review!
Eddie

>
> Cheers,
>
> Andrew
>
>> +
>> +Example:
>> +
>>> +    i2c-bus at 100 {
>> +        #address-cells = <1>;
>> +        #size-cells = <0>;
>> +        #interrupt-cells = <1>;
>> +        < more properties >
>> +
>>> +        power-supply at 68 {
>> +            compatible = "ibm,cffps1";
>> +            reg = <0x68>;
>> +        };
>> +    };