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

Groups > linux.kernel > #1309061 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v2 9/9] regulator: add LM363X driver

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 9/9] regulator: add LM363X driver Milo Kim <milo.kim@ti.com> - 2016-01-14 09:00 +0100
    Re: [PATCH v2 9/9] regulator: add LM363X driver Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> - 2016-01-14 11:30 +0100
      Re: [PATCH v2 9/9] regulator: add LM363X driver "Kim, Milo" <milo.kim@ti.com> - 2016-01-15 00:50 +0100

#1309061 — Re: [PATCH v2 9/9] regulator: add LM363X driver

Lee and Mark,

On 11/26/2015 03:57 PM, Milo Kim wrote:
> LM363X regulator driver supports LM3631 and LM3632.
> LM3631 has 5 regulators. LM3632 provides 3 regulators.
> One boost output and LDOs are used for the display module.
> Boost voltage is configurable but always on.
> Supported operations for LDOs are enabled/disabled and voltage change.
>
> Two LDOs of LM3632 can be controlled by external pins.
> Those are configured through the DT properties.
>
> Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
> Cc: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
> Cc: Jacek Anaszewski <j.anaszewski@samsung.com>
> Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>
> Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: linux-leds@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Milo Kim <milo.kim@ti.com>

I'm creating the 3rd patch-set but this driver is found in linux-next 
tree. And Axel Lin has patched this driver. In my patch v3, modified 
part is DT properties for external enable pins. (Use '-gpios' instead of 
'-gpio')

diff --git a/drivers/regulator/lm363x-regulator.c 
b/drivers/regulator/lm363x-regulator.c
index f53e633..4a11290 100644
--- a/drivers/regulator/lm363x-regulator.c
+++ b/drivers/regulator/lm363x-regulator.c
@@ -227,9 +227,9 @@ static int 
lm363x_regulator_of_get_enable_gpio(struct device_node *np, int id)
*/
switch (id) {
case LM3632_LDO_POS:
- return of_get_named_gpio(np, "ti,lcm-en1-gpio", 0);
+ return of_get_named_gpio(np, "ti,lcm-en1-gpios", 0);
case LM3632_LDO_NEG:
- return of_get_named_gpio(np, "ti,lcm-en2-gpio", 0);
+ return of_get_named_gpio(np, "ti,lcm-en2-gpios", 0);
default:
return -EINVAL;
}

So, I'd like to know which is better for you.
a) Create a patch based on linux-next tree (the above patch)
Or
b) Re-generate a patch based on linux-mfd tree

Best regards,
Milo

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1309160

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

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 04:56:03PM +0900, Milo Kim wrote:

> So, I'd like to know which is better for you.
> a) Create a patch based on linux-next tree (the above patch)
> Or
> b) Re-generate a patch based on linux-mfd tree

At this point the easiest thing might be to wait for v4.5-rc1 then send
a patch for that after everything gets merged.

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

#1309766

On 1/14/2016 7:27 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 04:56:03PM +0900, Milo Kim wrote:
>
>> So, I'd like to know which is better for you.
>> a) Create a patch based on linux-next tree (the above patch)
>> Or
>> b) Re-generate a patch based on linux-mfd tree
>
> At this point the easiest thing might be to wait for v4.5-rc1 then send
> a patch for that after everything gets merged.

OK, thanks!

Best regards,
Milo

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web