On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Pavel Machek [off-list ref] wrote:

Hi!

quoted

quoted

We are moving to device tree support on OMAP3, but that currently
breaks ADP1653 driver. This adds device tree support, plus required
documentation.

Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek <redacted>

---

Changed -microsec to -us, as requested by devicetree people.

Fixed checkpatch issues.

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/common.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/common.txt
index 2d88816..2c6c7c5 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/common.txt
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/common.txt

@@ -14,6 +14,15 @@ Optional properties for child nodes:
      "ide-disk" - LED indicates disk activity
      "timer" - LED flashes at a fixed, configurable rate

+- max-microamp : maximum intensity in microamperes of the LED
+                (torch LED for flash devices)
+- flash-max-microamp : maximum intensity in microamperes of the
+                       flash LED; it is mandatory if the LED should
+                      support the flash mode
+- flash-timeout-microsec : timeout in microseconds after which the flash
+                           LED is turned off

Doesn't all this go in your flash led binding patch?

No, I should not have included this part.

quoted

quoted

+Example:
+
+        adp1653: led-controller at 30 {
+                compatible = "adi,adp1653";
+               reg = <0x30>;
+                gpios = <&gpio3 24 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>; /* 88 */
+
+               flash {
+                        flash-timeout-us = <500000>;
+                        flash-max-microamp = <320000>;
+                        max-microamp = <50000>;
+               };
+                indicator {

These are different LEDs or different modes?

flash & indicator are different LEDs. One is white, one is red. Flash
can be used as a flash and as a torch.

quoted

quoted

+                        max-microamp = <17500>;

This is a bit inconsistent. The binding says this is for flash LEDs
torch mode, but I see no reason why it can't be common. Can you update
the binding doc to be clear here.

By inconsisnent, you mean you want patch below?

Yes.

quoted

Also, aren't you missing label properties?

label is optional, and as my driver does not yet use it, I forgot
about it.

Based on your node names, there are obviously user defined functions
for them already. So they should have labels whether or not the driver
uses them.

Rob