[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141128112116.GG7712@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 11:21:16 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>
Cc: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Kukjin Kim <kgene@...nel.org>,
Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/7] regulator: dt-bindings: Document the ena-gpios
property
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 10:09:44AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> I understand your concerns here however I didn't want to overengineer
> this. Is the same GPIO (on more complex PMICs) used in different
> contexts? Like enable control and something more in the same time?
Yes, and it's often reprogrammable at runtime.
> Something like:
> struct regulator_desc desc {
> .name = "LDO1
> .of_match = of_match_ptr("LDO1"),
> .regulators_node = of_match_ptr("voltage-regulators"),
> .ops = &max77686_ldo_ops,
> + .of_ena_gpio = of_match_ptr("ena-gpios"),
> ...
> }
Yes, and note that this also means existing bindings can use the core
code.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists