[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ee9ef65b-38c6-2283-b1e7-abf49abdccd6@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2023 09:51:42 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, andersson@...nel.org,
agross@...nel.org
Cc: marijn.suijten@...ainline.org, Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] regulator: dt-bindings: qcom-labibb: Allow
regulator-common properties
On 16/01/2023 10:25, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> Allow regulator-common properties on lab/ibb regulators, such as
> regulator-always-on, etc.
Are these proper regulators? If so this looks sensible. Why calling it
RFC? What is here questionable?
>
> Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>
> ---
> .../bindings/regulator/qcom-labibb-regulator.yaml | 6 ++++--
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/qcom-labibb-regulator.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/qcom-labibb-regulator.yaml
> index f97b8083678f..c0be7d5a6d40 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/qcom-labibb-regulator.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/qcom-labibb-regulator.yaml
> @@ -20,7 +20,8 @@ properties:
>
> lab:
> type: object
> - additionalProperties: false
> + $ref: "regulator.yaml#"
Drop quotes.
> + unevaluatedProperties: false
>
> properties:
> qcom,soft-start-us:
> @@ -46,7 +47,8 @@ properties:
>
> ibb:
> type: object
> - additionalProperties: false
> + $ref: "regulator.yaml#"
Drop quotes.
> + unevaluatedProperties: false
>
> properties:
> qcom,discharge-resistor-kohms:
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists