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

[Andrew Jeffery]

On Mon, 2017-08-14 at 10:09 -0500, Eddie James wrote:
> 
> 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?

It's not normal to document specific registers, no. However, it is normal to
expose the device's configuration fields as properties. Reading back I chose my
words poorly, but my query was about the properties of the device that can be
configured through these registers, not really about the registers themselves.

> And why just those ones?

Because from a quick scan of the datasheet, these seem to be the remaining
registers that contained fields that could be configured.

> The driver doesn't use them. Presumably someone who wants to use them can
> look at the spec.

Upstream's stance is that the bindings describe the hardware, and the
strong preferences is that the description is complete at the time of
submission.

Though maybe if there are optional properties it's not so significant.

Cheers,

Andrew

> 
> 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>;
> > > +        };
> > > +    };
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/openbmc/attachments/20170816/5898ed36/attachment.sig>