From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753635Ab1KDVSF (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Nov 2011 17:18:05 -0400 Received: from mail-gy0-f174.google.com ([209.85.160.174]:47027 "EHLO mail-gy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752883Ab1KDVSD (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Nov 2011 17:18:03 -0400 Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 14:18:24 -0700 From: Olof Johansson To: Mark Brown Cc: Rajendra Nayak , grant.likely@secretlab.ca, patches@linaro.org, tony@atomide.com, devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, lrg@ti.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] regulator: adapt fixed regulator driver to dt Message-ID: <20111104211824.GA5608@quad.lixom.net> References: <1319702185-16108-1-git-send-email-rnayak@ti.com> <1319702185-16108-3-git-send-email-rnayak@ti.com> <20111104203422.GB3918@quad.lixom.net> <20111104210151.GA2541@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20111104210151.GA2541@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 09:01:52PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 01:34:22PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote: > > > Shouldn't a fixed regulator just be a subset of a fixed one? If so, should the > > binding be merged with that one? > > No, the fixed voltage regultor is a superset of a general regulator - it > has additional information like the voltage it supplies and the optional > enable GPIO. Still, seems like it could be merged into one regulator binding. > > > +- regulator-fixed-enabled-at-boot: 1 = yes, 0 = no > > > Same here, you can drop the prefix. Also, the regular regulators use > > "regulator-name" for the supply name, it would make sense to reuse the same > > naming here, right? > > I'm having a hard time associating your second comment with the property > being discussed - could you clarify please? It was the first comment I wrote on the whole block and later interspersed other comments above, so I don't blame you for not understanding. The second comment was related to the "regulator-fixed-supply" property at the top of the block. -Olof