[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-id: <1417175667.18249.26.camel@AMDC1943>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 12:54:27 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
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 piÄ…, 2014-11-28 at 11:21 +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> 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.
I have doubts if generalized code could support such configuration...
>
> > 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.
Thanks for idea,
Krzysztof
--
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