[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <05843386-92f4-4246-a633-315c3178d86f@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2024 12:35:50 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc: Alina Yu <alina_yu@...htek.com>, lgirdwood@...il.com,
robh+dt@...nel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org,
conor+dt@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, cy_huang@...htek.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] regulator: dt-bindings: rtq2208: Add specified fixed
LDO VOUT property
On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 11:27:06AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 22/05/2024 11:03, Alina Yu wrote:
> > Due to the fixed LDO VOUT being outside the range of the adjustable one,
> > a special-use property has been added to avoid overusing the constraints.
> Hm, why exactly this is not a bool property? What are the benefits?
It avoids confusion between invalid constraints specified on the
variable voltage regulator and allows us to validate any constraints
that happen to be specified (though it'd be pointless to specify
constraints). The fact that the regulator could also be variable
voltage is asking for confusion if we use boolean.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists