Re: [RFC PATCH v2 02/13] dt-bindings: mfd: Document ROHM BD71828 bindings

On Tue, 2019-10-29 at 14:34 -0500, Rob Herring wrote:

On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 05:49:17AM +0000, Vaittinen, Matti wrote:

quoted

Hello Dan,

Thanks again for checking this :)

On Thu, 2019-10-24 at 14:35 -0500, Dan Murphy wrote:

quoted

Matti

On 10/24/19 6:41 AM, Matti Vaittinen wrote:

quoted

ROHM BD71828 Power management IC integrates 7 buck converters,
7
LDOs,
a real-time clock (RTC), 3 GPO/regulator control pins, HALL
input
and a 32.768 kHz clock gate.

Document the dt bindings drivers are using.

Signed-off-by: Matti Vaittinen <
matti.vaittinen@fi.rohmeurope.com>
---

No changes since v1

  .../bindings/mfd/rohm,bd71828-pmic.txt        | 180
++++++++++++++++++
  1 file changed, 180 insertions(+)
  create mode 100644
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/rohm,bd71828-pmic.txt

I will let maintainers weigh in here but if this is new this
should 
probably be in the yaml format to avoid conversion in the future

Oh... This is new to me. I guess there are reasons for this - but I
must say I am not excited as I have never used yaml for anything.
I'll
do as you suggest and wait for what others have to say :) Thanks
for
pointing this out though.

Sorry for your lack of excitement. It could be XML...

Thanks, I appreciate that, apology accepted X-D

There aren't many MFD examples yet, but there is max77650 in my tree
and 
linux-next.

I looked at the max77650 MFD binding from linux-next. After that I also
looked some of the generic documents for DT bindings (I know - I should
have done that earlier and your job had been easier). But all that left
me "slightly" puzzled. After some further wandering in the virtual
world I spotted this:
https://elinux.org/images/6/6b/LPC2018_json-schema_for_Devicetree.pdf

I think this link in some dt-yaml-binding-readme might be helpful.

So if I understand this correctly, idea is to convert the dts sources
to use yaml (right?). This is seen better because more people know
JSON/YAML than dts format(?) Fair enough. Although some of us know dts
format decently well but have never used JSON or yaml. I guess dts
support is not going away though and yaml examples do not seem terribly
hard at first sight.

What comes to binding docs - well, in my eyes (which may be biased)
writing documentation in anything intended to be interpreted by a
machine is still a step backwards for a human document reader. Sure
syntax validation or reviewing is easier if format is machine readable
- but free text info is more, well, informative (form me at least). I
for example wouldn't like reading a book written in any script or
markup language. Nor writing one. It is difficult for me to understand
the documentation change to yaml, maybe because I am more often using
the binding docs for composing DT for a device than reviewing them ;)

Anyways, I guess I'd better either try learning the yaml, figure out
what are schemas and see how to convert yaml docs to text for nicer
reading (I assume this is doable) and how to verify yaml binding docs
are Ok - or quit contributing. No one is forcing me to do this.
Continuing complaining on this is probably not getting us anywhere so I
might as well shut up now :/

And Sorry Rob. I am seeing you have been really close to this yaml/JSON
change so my wondering may be frustrating. I don't intend to be
disrespectful - I see that you have done huge work with this. I am
just... ...Slightly set in my ways. Little bit pig-headed and somewhat
a smart-arse - so I couldn't just let it go without giving out an
opinion.

quoted

quoted

i2c {

         pmic@4b {

                 [...]

         };

};

I don't think the I2C node is needed in example. It is not part of
the
PMIC - and I don't see the containing bus in other examples I just
opened. (the two other rohm,xxx PMIC docs - well, biased as I wrote
them), da9150.txt, lp3943.txt, max77686.txt, tps6507x.txt,
tps65910.txt

It will be needed for the schema because the examples are compiled
and 
validated.

Thanks for explaining the reason.

Br,
	Matti Vaittinen