From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751959AbbG0Kdc (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Jul 2015 06:33:32 -0400 Received: from mezzanine.sirena.org.uk ([106.187.55.193]:41655 "EHLO mezzanine.sirena.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751071AbbG0Kdb (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Jul 2015 06:33:31 -0400 Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 11:33:16 +0100 From: Mark Brown To: Javier Martinez Canillas Cc: Lee Jones , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, Sergei Shtylyov , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Krzysztof Kozlowski , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Message-ID: <20150727103316.GV11162@sirena.org.uk> References: <1437114567-17629-1-git-send-email-javier@osg.samsung.com> <1437114567-17629-2-git-send-email-javier@osg.samsung.com> <20150720081020.GD3061@x1> <55ACC986.5040408@osg.samsung.com> <55B607B7.6050803@osg.samsung.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="YBvFKvyrw8Qeqs3/" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <55B607B7.6050803@osg.samsung.com> X-Cookie: Stay together, drag each other down. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 94.175.94.161 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: broonie@sirena.org.uk Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] mfd: max77686: Don't suggest in binding to use a deprecated property X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:24:06 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mezzanine.sirena.org.uk) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --YBvFKvyrw8Qeqs3/ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline 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. --YBvFKvyrw8Qeqs3/ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVtgjrAAoJECTWi3JdVIfQvp8H/1gEvXFldCKHKzcAkeyiPUIW bo8kxMF7QfbucXqSU7ebsYqCI7roO7CbQCuSCSyjGsc78vchcacAdKaFs523FXbc tx27XDN5sbUx2ifpk8n9yt9lGbrghw0FZVn4HVbsk8Ku+ueAJbX7BKx1h2dy42gA qcGtWKq0nqDZLhjEcdr+t1SkNEfG1ViN/F3vfY0qPLB8b6Tv8ljQMEYZ1MlqITOh gnfyfIUzU4Xt4FXybI+4LyFdwTRC5mYlJrXJurVdR7cfSUtj6bnqiU9w2g9WAVAc 7WX7kmgn20xAclWfodeqz7syLDYu3YCY+jo3XuvalqxAGM1wM6RbOc7ZxPg0drI= =g0EG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --YBvFKvyrw8Qeqs3/--