[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140318160701.GD1665@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 16:07:01 +0000
From: Charles Keepax <ckeepax@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: robh+dt@...nel.org, pawel.moll@....com, mark.rutland@....com,
ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk, galak@...eaurora.org,
rob@...dley.net, sameo@...ux.intel.com, lee.jones@...aro.org,
lgirdwood@...il.com, patches@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] regulator: arizona-ldo1: Add processing of
init_data from device tree
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 11:15:42AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 10:49:13AM +0000, Charles Keepax wrote:
>
> > + - wlf,ldo1 : Initial data for the LDO1 regulator, as covered in
> > + Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/regulator.txt
>
> We don't normally prefix the names of the regulator data with a vendor.
>
> > + np_init = of_get_child_by_name(arizona->dev->of_node, "wlf,ldo1");
>
> You're missing an of_node_put() for this and if you're going to use
> hungarian notation please use a convention other people use. Calling
> things _node seems more common.
The DCVDD one needs an of_node_put but I am not sure this one
does. As it will be copied into the regulator device of_node by
the regulator core so wont of_node_put be called when the device
is destroyed? Admittedly I haven't checked that but seems
sensible that the device structure would put its of_node when it
closes down.
Thanks,
Charles
--
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