[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140418150651.GW12304@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 16:06:51 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc: Anton Vorontsov <anton@...msg.org>,
Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
Sachin Kamat <sachin.kamat@...aro.org>,
ajaykumar.rs@...sung.com, linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org,
Simon Glass <sjg@...omium.org>,
Michael Spang <spang@...omium.org>,
Sean Paul <seanpaul@...omium.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>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] regulator: tps65090: Allow setting the
overcurrent wait time
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 04:12:28PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> The tps65090 regulator allows you to specify how long you want it to
> wait before detecting an overcurrent condition. Allow specifying that
> through the device tree (or through platform data).
Applied, thanks.
> +- ti,overcurrent-wait: This is applicable to FET registers, which have a
> + poorly defined "overcurrent wait" field. If this property is present it
> + should be between 0 - 3. If this property isn't present we won't touch the
> + "overcurrent wait" field and we'll leave it to the BIOS/EC to deal with.
What I was driving at by asking if this was the raw register value was
that the binding should make this clearer ideally.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists