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

[Tomasz Figa]

On Wednesday 24 of July 2013 16:20:02 Olof Johansson wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa at gmail.com> 
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...
> 
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/video/backlight/max8925-backlight.txt
> 
> But yes, the regulator one looks normal.

Oh gosh, it's time to sleep. I confused 8925 with 8952... Sorry for the 
noise and thanks for quick reply. (I'm writing separate reply about 
janitoring/cleanup itself.)

Best regards,
Tomasz