From: Serge Semin <[email protected]>
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 <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Alexey Malahov <[email protected]>
Cc: Thomas Bogendoerfer <[email protected]>
Cc: Paul Burton <[email protected]>
Cc: Ralf Baechle <[email protected]>
---
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 <[email protected]>
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
On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 6:48 AM <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> From: Serge Semin <[email protected]>
>
> 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
On Fri, Mar 06, 2020 at 07:56:51AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 6:48 AM <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > From: Serge Semin <[email protected]>
> >
> > 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