[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK9yfHzgH-4C5agpu9SFckp1BcB6s9jeviDVZBokhS+aRh9RUA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 15:21:55 +0530
From: Sachin Kamat <sachin.kamat@...aro.org>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Sangbeom Kim <sbkim73@...sung.com>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-samsung-soc <linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
Tomasz Figa <t.figa@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] regulator: s5m8767: Use same binding for external
control as in s2mps11
On 15 April 2014 14:25, Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com> wrote:
> On wto, 2014-04-15 at 14:02 +0530, Sachin Kamat wrote:
>> On 15 April 2014 13:42, Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com> wrote:
>> > On wto, 2014-04-15 at 13:26 +0530, Sachin Kamat wrote:
>> >> On 15 April 2014 02:41, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
>> >> > On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 10:09:09AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> - - s5m8767,pmic-ext-control-gpios: (optional) GPIO specifier for one
>> >> >> + - samsung,ext-control-gpios: (optional) GPIO specifier for one
>> >> >> GPIO controlling this regulator (enable/disable); This is
>> >> >> valid only for buck9.
>> >> >
>> >> > This is an incompatible change. It's OK to deprecate the old property
>> >> > but it's bad form to just remove it.
>> >>
>> >> I agree with Mark. Also, there is no need to make it generic.
>> >
>> > I thought it would be good to make it consistent and to reduce the
>> > number of bindings with same meaning on similar drivers.
>>
>> How about making the other one use "s5m8767,pmic-ext-control-gpios"
>> compatible instead of introducing a new one?
>
> But then we would introduce semi-generic binding with a driver-specific
> name.
We can have a IP specific name (first IP to have this property) common
across family of IPs.
>
> Anyway more drivers seem to use this kind of binding (tps65090, max8952,
> da9055, arizona) so maybe there is a point in making this generic?
In that case we could but probably not with samsung prefix.
--
With warm regards,
Sachin
--
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