[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4FE35A78.60003@wwwdotorg.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 11:31:36 -0600
From: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
CC: Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>, lrg@...com,
rob.herring@...xeda.com, grant.likely@...retlab.ca,
linus.walleij@...aro.org, lee.jones@...aro.org,
devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 2/3] regulator: dt: regulator match by regulator-compatible
On 06/21/2012 11:17 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 21 June 2012, Mark Brown wrote:
...
>> I'm also not sure if the tooling works well for allowing people to
>> include standard DTs for chips and add new properties to nodes for the
>> board specific configuration, though I think I've seen a few things
>> which suggested that was dealt with reasonably well.
>
> It should never be necessary to add board-specific properties in the
> nodes that describe the SoC specific bits. What I was referring to
> is just moving the data that currently resides in the regulator
> driver into DT.
I guess I must be misunderstanding that comment - there are many many
examples of boards adding properties to nodes that describe the SoC. For
example, the GPIOs used by SDHCI controllers, board-specific max clock
rates for SDHCI or I2C controllers, pinmux configuration properties, to
name just a few.
--
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