[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111104210151.GA2541@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 21:01:52 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To: Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
Cc: Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...com>, grant.likely@...retlab.ca,
patches@...aro.org, tony@...mide.com,
devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, lrg@...com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] regulator: adapt fixed regulator driver to dt
On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 01:34:22PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> Shouldn't a fixed regulator just be a subset of a fixed one? If so, should the
> binding be merged with that one?
No, the fixed voltage regultor is a superset of a general regulator - it
has additional information like the voltage it supplies and the optional
enable GPIO.
> > +- regulator-fixed-enabled-at-boot: 1 = yes, 0 = no
> Same here, you can drop the prefix. Also, the regular regulators use
> "regulator-name" for the supply name, it would make sense to reuse the same
> naming here, right?
I'm having a hard time associating your second comment with the property
being discussed - could you clarify please?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists