Do we have people interested in device tree janitoring / cleanup?

Olof Johansson olof at
Wed Jul 24 19:20:02 EDT 2013


On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa at> wrote:
> Hi Olof,
> On Wednesday 24 of July 2013 08:27:13 Olof Johansson wrote:
>> Every now and then I come across a binding that's just done Wrong(tm),
>> merged through a submaintainer tree and hasn't seen proper review --
>> if it had, it wouldn't look the way it does. It's something we're
>> starting to address now since there's more people stepping up to be
>> maintainers, but there's a backlog of bad bindings already merged.
>> Often they are produced by translating the platform_data structures
>> directly over into device-tree properties without consideration to
>> describing the hardware or usual conventions, using key/value pairs
>> instead of boolean properties, etc.
>> Getting involved in cleaning up these kind of bindings is a great way
>> to learn "the ways of device tree" for someone that has interest in
>> that.
>> Latest find in this area is the Maxim 8925 bindings, that I came
>> across since they caused a compile warning on some defconfig. I'll
>> post a patch to address the warning but if someone else feels like
>> fixing the bindings on top of it that would be appreciated!
> Care to explain your doubts about max8952 bindings? As far as I remember
> it's just a standard single voltage regulator (= generic regulator
> bindings) + some device specific properties.
> Looking at Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/max8952.txt I don't
> really see anything worrying...


But yes, the regulator one looks normal.


More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list