[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGngYiW+8m4fBAY5Ya_4YmEmCTQeiiNP6=aH2mUX6d2wY1442w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 12:17:50 -0500
From: Sven Van Asbroeck <thesven73@...il.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Jacek Anaszewski <jacek.anaszewski@...il.com>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Grigoryev Denis <grigoryev@...twel.ru>,
Axel Lin <axel.lin@...ics.com>, Dan Murphy <dmurphy@...com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-leds@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] tps6105x: add optional devicetree support
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 12:01 PM Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> We shouldn't need a compatible here, the MFD should just instantiate any
> children it has.
If the child node doesn't have a compatible, how would the driver be
able to work
out the operational mode? The chip can only be in a single operational mode
at a time. So the child node has 'led' or 'regulator' compatible.
Or is there a more elegant method I've overlooked?
> This also doesn't document any actual regulators on
> the device.
The chip contains a single optional regulator only. I documented its
dt bindings later in the patchset.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists