[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151110170447.GI12392@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 17:04:47 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: "Andrew F. Davis" <afd@...com>
Cc: 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>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/5] regulator: tps65912: Add regulator driver for the
TPS65912 PMIC
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:47:33AM -0600, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
> On 11/10/2015 03:57 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> >Of course this is a negative review of the binding! What on earth did
> >you think my feedback meant? The driver and the binding go together.
> The bindings should be driver/platform/OS agnostic, changing the bindings
> because the Linux regulator subsystem maintainer doesn't like them
> in regulator drivers is then not correct.
> If the binding is accepted then the regulator driver will just have
> to deal with it, so as I said, why not nack the bindings patch, and
> explain your objection where DT maintainers might see it.
If I'm not going to merge the driver because of issues in the DT code it
is vanishingly unlikely that I'm going to merge the regulator bindings
either. I would have thought it should be clear that my review comments
cover both the manifestation of the bindings in the driver and the
bindings themselves.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists