[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141023031443.GA3244@jack-ThinkPad-T520>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 12:14:43 +0900
From: Gyungoh Yoo <gyungoh@...il.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: sameo@...ux.intel.com, lee.jones@...aro.org, jg1.han@...sung.com,
cooloney@...il.com, lgirdwood@...il.com, jack.yoo@...worksinc.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
grant.likely@...aro.org, robh+dt@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com,
ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk, galak@...eaurora.org,
pawel.moll@....com, heiko@...ech.de, jason@...edaemon.net,
shawn.guo@...escale.com, treding@...dia.com,
florian.vaussard@...l.ch, trivial@...nel.org, linux@...ck-us.net,
andrew@...n.ch, jic23@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RESUBMIT PATCH v4 7/8] regulator: sky81452: Add compatible
string for device binding
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 11:27:23AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 03:10:24PM +0900, Gyungoh Yoo wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 04:26:05PM +0200, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > > The thing I'm seeing is that the binding for your device with the
> > > subnode looks very much like the device trees of devices with multiple
> > > regulators. The fact that you only have one regulator is a bit
> > > difference but not that much. It seems like drivers should fit into one
> > > of two patterns: either the regulator is described in the root node for
> > > the device for single purpose devices or there should be a collection of
> > > regulators like is supported with this helper API. Having a collection
> > > with only one node doesn't seem to be a problem in any way.
>
> > Thank you for your kind comments.
> > My understanding is getting better.
>
> > For my clear understanding:
> > I think the original designed which I wanted to design is similar
> > with arizona-ldo1.c
> > It seems that this is 1st pattern your explained above.
> > Can I ask what is different between arizona-ldo1.c and
> > this sky81452-regulator.c?
> > I think both are designed under root node.
>
> Were that code being written today I'd probably be asking for it to use
> a regulators subnode to be consistent with everything else, it's a
> slightly older driver and sometimes we've not spotted the patterns when
> they're added, once we get to the point of adding the helpers as we have
> now things are definitely getting baked in.
I see. Thank you.
So, what do you think about DT like below?
sky81452@2c {
compatible = "skyworks,sky81452";
reg = <0x2c>;
backlight {
compatible = "skyworks,sky81452-backlight";
name = "pwm-backlight";
enable = <0x3F>;
ignore-pwm;
};
regulator {
compatible = "skyworks,sky81452-regulator";
lout@0 {
regulator-name = "LOUT";
regulator-min-microvolt = <4500000>;
regulator-max-microvolt = <8000000>;
};
};
};
--
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