[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210401095908.GC1993499@BV030612LT>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2021 12:59:08 +0300
From: Cristian Ciocaltea <cristian.ciocaltea@...il.com>
To: Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@...nel.org>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Andreas Färber <afaerber@...e.de>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-actions@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] arm: dts: owl-s500-roseapplepi: Add ATC2603C PMIC
On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 11:13:00AM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 11:49:27AM +0200, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote:
> > Add device tree node for ATC2603C PMIC and remove the 'fixed-3.1V'
> > dummy regulator used for the uSD supply.
> >
> > Additionally, add 'SYSPWR' fixed regulator and provide cpu0 supply.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Cristian Ciocaltea <cristian.ciocaltea@...il.com>
>
> Applied to for-next after fixing the patch subject as below:
>
> "ARM: dts: owl-s500-roseapplepi: Add ATC2603C PMIC"
I encountered commits with both "ARM: dts:" and "arm: dts:" prefixes,
so I wasn't sure if there is a preferred format.
I have just counted the no. of occurrences in git log for both variants
and it seems the former is indeed more common, so I will make sure to
use "ARM: ..." from now on.
Thanks for noticing this,
Cristi
> Thanks,
> Mani
[...]
Powered by blists - more mailing lists