linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 9/9] regulator: add LM363X driver

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Thu, 14 Jan 2016 16:56:03 +0900
From:	Milo Kim <milo.kim@...com>
To:	<lee.jones@...aro.org>, <broonie@...nel.org>
CC:	<robh+dt@...nel.org>, <j.anaszewski@...sung.com>,
	<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-leds@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 9/9] regulator: add LM363X driver

Lee and Mark,

On 11/26/2015 03:57 PM, Milo Kim wrote:
> LM363X regulator driver supports LM3631 and LM3632.
> LM3631 has 5 regulators. LM3632 provides 3 regulators.
> One boost output and LDOs are used for the display module.
> Boost voltage is configurable but always on.
> Supported operations for LDOs are enabled/disabled and voltage change.
>
> Two LDOs of LM3632 can be controlled by external pins.
> Those are configured through the DT properties.
>
> Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
> Cc: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
> Cc: Jacek Anaszewski <j.anaszewski@...sung.com>
> Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
> Cc: devicetree@...r.kernel.org
> Cc: linux-leds@...r.kernel.org
> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Milo Kim <milo.kim@...com>

I'm creating the 3rd patch-set but this driver is found in linux-next 
tree. And Axel Lin has patched this driver. In my patch v3, modified 
part is DT properties for external enable pins. (Use '-gpios' instead of 
'-gpio')

diff --git a/drivers/regulator/lm363x-regulator.c 
b/drivers/regulator/lm363x-regulator.c
index f53e633..4a11290 100644
--- a/drivers/regulator/lm363x-regulator.c
+++ b/drivers/regulator/lm363x-regulator.c
@@ -227,9 +227,9 @@ static int 
lm363x_regulator_of_get_enable_gpio(struct device_node *np, int id)
*/
switch (id) {
case LM3632_LDO_POS:
- return of_get_named_gpio(np, "ti,lcm-en1-gpio", 0);
+ return of_get_named_gpio(np, "ti,lcm-en1-gpios", 0);
case LM3632_LDO_NEG:
- return of_get_named_gpio(np, "ti,lcm-en2-gpio", 0);
+ return of_get_named_gpio(np, "ti,lcm-en2-gpios", 0);
default:
return -EINVAL;
}

So, I'd like to know which is better for you.
a) Create a patch based on linux-next tree (the above patch)
Or
b) Re-generate a patch based on linux-mfd tree

Best regards,
Milo