Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1192940 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] mfd: max77686: Don't suggest in binding to use a deprecated property

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] mfd: max77686: Don't suggest in binding to use a  deprecated property Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com> - 2015-07-27 12:30 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] mfd: max77686: Don't suggest in binding to use a  deprecated property Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> - 2015-07-27 12:40 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] mfd: max77686: Don't suggest in binding to use a  deprecated property Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com> - 2015-07-27 12:50 +0200

#1192940 — Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] mfd: max77686: Don't suggest in binding to use a deprecated property

Hello Mark,

On 07/20/2015 12:12 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> Hello Lee,
> 
> Thanks a lot for your feedback.
> 
> On 07/20/2015 10:10 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Jul 2015, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>>
>>> The regulator-compatible property from the regulator DT binding was
>>> deprecated. But the max77686 DT binding doc still suggest to use it
>>> instead of the regulator node name's which is the correct approach.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
>>
>> By convention shouldn't this be buck@1, or something?
>>
>> Need Mark to look at this.
>>
> 
> That's a very good question, the ePAPR doc says:
> 
> "The unit-address must match the first address specified in the reg property
> of the node. If the node has no reg property, the @ and unit-address must be
> omitted and the node-name alone differentiates the node from other nodes at
> the same level in the tree"
> 
> This PMIC uses a single I2C address for all the regulators and these are
> controlled by writing to different I2C register addresses. So the regulator
> nodes don't have a reg property in this case.
> 
> By looking at other regulators bindings, besides the generic regulator.txt
> and fixed-regulator.txt DT bindings, there are only 5 (out of 40) that use
> the node-name@unit-address convention mentioned in the ePAPR document.
> 
> AFAICT all these are for regulators that are actually in different addresses
> but I could be wrong so let's see what Mark says.
> 

Any opinions on this?

thanks a lot and best regards,
-- 
Javier Martinez Canillas
Open Source Group
Samsung Research America
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1192948

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 12:28:07PM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> On 07/20/2015 12:12 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:

> > This PMIC uses a single I2C address for all the regulators and these are
> > controlled by writing to different I2C register addresses. So the regulator
> > nodes don't have a reg property in this case.

> > By looking at other regulators bindings, besides the generic regulator.txt
> > and fixed-regulator.txt DT bindings, there are only 5 (out of 40) that use
> > the node-name@unit-address convention mentioned in the ePAPR document.

> > AFAICT all these are for regulators that are actually in different addresses
> > but I could be wrong so let's see what Mark says.

> Any opinions on this?

I just don't care, this is just syntactic noise which has no practical
meaning as far as I can tell.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1192951

Hello Mark,

On 07/27/2015 12:33 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 12:28:07PM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>> On 07/20/2015 12:12 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> 
>>> This PMIC uses a single I2C address for all the regulators and these are
>>> controlled by writing to different I2C register addresses. So the regulator
>>> nodes don't have a reg property in this case.
> 
>>> By looking at other regulators bindings, besides the generic regulator.txt
>>> and fixed-regulator.txt DT bindings, there are only 5 (out of 40) that use
>>> the node-name@unit-address convention mentioned in the ePAPR document.
> 
>>> AFAICT all these are for regulators that are actually in different addresses
>>> but I could be wrong so let's see what Mark says.
> 
>> Any opinions on this?
> 
> I just don't care, this is just syntactic noise which has no practical
> meaning as far as I can tell.
>

thanks, I'll then leave the regulator's node name as is in the patch
since that is consistent with the rest of the regulator DT bindings.

Best regards,
-- 
Javier Martinez Canillas
Open Source Group
Samsung Research America
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web