[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9c4a995d-2dc0-1731-cca0-a013483a4fc0@quicinc.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2022 17:45:16 +0530
From: "Satya Priya Kakitapalli (Temp)" <quic_c_skakit@...cinc.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
CC: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>, <swboyd@...omium.org>,
<collinsd@...eaurora.org>, <subbaram@...eaurora.org>,
Das Srinagesh <gurus@...eaurora.org>,
<linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
"Lee Jones" <lee.jones@...aro.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 2/6] dt-bindings: regulator: Add pm8008 regulator
bindings
On 1/10/2022 7:51 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 06:42:08PM +0530, Satya Priya Kakitapalli (Temp) wrote:
>
>> To understand how other upstream mfd drivers are handling this I've gone
>> through some of them. Taking one example, mfd/stpmic1.c is a pmicĀ mfd
>> device which has a regulators sub-node with separate compatible, and has the
>> parent supplies listed under the regulators node.
> There are some devices that did get merged doing this, that doesn't mean
> it's a great idea though.
In that case, it would be helpful if you could provide an example which
has the design you suggested.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists