[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <582B4241.9030009@nvidia.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 22:43:37 +0530
From: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>
To: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
CC: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
Aleksandr Frid <afrid@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: pwm: DT: Add ramp delay for exponential
voltage transition
On Tuesday 15 November 2016 07:57 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 5:42 AM, Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com> wrote:
>> On Monday 14 November 2016 09:18 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 11:07:54PM +0530, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>>>>
>>>> regulator
>>>> +- pwm-regulator-voltage-ramp-time-us: Integer, voltage ramp time in
>>> This is a really long name. Drop the 'pwm-regulator-' part as it is
>>> redundant. The fact that it is PWM reg specific is captured as it is
>>> documented that way.
>>>
>> We already have the regulator-ramp-delay from the regulator core.
>> Just wanted to make this (pwm-regulator-voltage-ramp-time-us) for pwm
>> specific.
> Neither of these are very clear that one is linear and one is
> exponential. Maybe you should use the existing property to express the
> time and just add a boolean property like "voltage-ramp-exponential"?
OK, this can work.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists