[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181004135427.GE6412@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 14:54:27 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc: Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS"
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Leonard Crestez <leonard.crestez@....com>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: fixed: Use more standard GPIO binding
On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 01:32:13PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 12:50 PM Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 11:06:54AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > > Optional properties:
> > > -- gpio: gpio to use for enable control
> > > +- gpios: gpio to use for enable control
> > Are we supposed to be able to have just plain gpios as a standards
> > conforming property or would best practice be to call it enable-gpios or
> > something?
> Oh I didn't think of that really. The gpio-regulator indeed uses
> enable-gpio for the same thing. But it complicates things codewise,
> as the GPIO line is also optional. I'm a bit uncertain, I tend
> to think just "gpios" is fine when the usage is unambigous. but
> I don't know what the DT maintainers think.
Right, well from my point of view -gpio is perfectly fine also so... :)
Rob?
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists