linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 7/7] ARM: dts: ifc6410: add inforce LVDS panel support

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

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <55C47D5C.8060905@linaro.org>
Date:	Fri, 07 Aug 2015 10:41:48 +0100
From:	Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
To:	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.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 29/07/15 23:46, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> 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.
I agree, Will do this in next version.
>
>> +
>> +        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.
Yep, will fix it in next version.
>
--
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/