[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55B60AB8.9080306@osg.samsung.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 12:40:56 +0200
From: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@....samsung.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org,
Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] mfd: max77686: Don't suggest in binding to use a
deprecated property
Hello Mark,
On 07/27/2015 12:33 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 12:28:07PM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>> On 07/20/2015 12:12 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>
>>> This PMIC uses a single I2C address for all the regulators and these are
>>> controlled by writing to different I2C register addresses. So the regulator
>>> nodes don't have a reg property in this case.
>
>>> By looking at other regulators bindings, besides the generic regulator.txt
>>> and fixed-regulator.txt DT bindings, there are only 5 (out of 40) that use
>>> the node-name@...t-address convention mentioned in the ePAPR document.
>
>>> AFAICT all these are for regulators that are actually in different addresses
>>> but I could be wrong so let's see what Mark says.
>
>> Any opinions on this?
>
> I just don't care, this is just syntactic noise which has no practical
> meaning as far as I can tell.
>
thanks, I'll then leave the regulator's node name as is in the patch
since that is consistent with the rest of the regulator DT bindings.
Best regards,
--
Javier Martinez Canillas
Open Source Group
Samsung Research America
--
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