lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 15:46:12 -0700 From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org> To: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org> CC: agross@...eaurora.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.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>, Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 7/7] ARM: dts: ifc6410: add inforce LVDS panel support On 07/28/2015 05:54 AM, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote: > + > + panel_3p3v: panel_3p3v { > + compatible = "regulator-fixed"; > + pinctrl-0 = <&disp_en_gpios>; > + pinctrl-names = "default"; > + regulator-min-microvolt = <3300000>; > + regulator-max-microvolt = <3300000>; > + regulator-name = "panel_en_3p3v"; > + regulator-type = "voltage"; > + startup-delay-us = <0>; > + gpio = <&pm8921_gpio 36 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>; > + enable-active-high; > + regulator-boot-on; > + }; We should put gpio regulators into their own container in the root of the tree. Similar to what was done for 8960 gpio regulators. > + > + backlight: backlight{ > + pinctrl-0 = <&pwm_bl_gpios>; > + pinctrl-names = "default"; > + compatible = "gpio-backlight"; > + gpios = <&pm8921_gpio 26 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>; > + default-on; > + }; > + > + panel: auo,b101xtn01 { > + status = "okay"; > + compatible = "auo,b101xtn01"; > + > + ddc-i2c-bus = <&i2c3>; > + backlight = <&backlight>; > + power-supply = <&panel_3p3v>; > }; These two nodes shouldn't be under the SoC node. They don't have registers so they should be at the root of the tree. And we don't need to put labels twice on nodes. If we're modifying things in board specific dtsi files it should be fine to leave the label off if the label is in the SoC dtsi file. -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project -- 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