lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Apr]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 4/4] regulator: s5m8767: Use same binding for external control as in s2mps11
    From
    Date
    On wto, 2014-04-15 at 14:02 +0530, Sachin Kamat wrote:
    > On 15 April 2014 13:42, Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com> wrote:
    > > On wto, 2014-04-15 at 13:26 +0530, Sachin Kamat wrote:
    > >> On 15 April 2014 02:41, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
    > >> > On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 10:09:09AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
    > >> >
    > >> >> - - s5m8767,pmic-ext-control-gpios: (optional) GPIO specifier for one
    > >> >> + - samsung,ext-control-gpios: (optional) GPIO specifier for one
    > >> >> GPIO controlling this regulator (enable/disable); This is
    > >> >> valid only for buck9.
    > >> >
    > >> > This is an incompatible change. It's OK to deprecate the old property
    > >> > but it's bad form to just remove it.
    > >>
    > >> I agree with Mark. Also, there is no need to make it generic.
    > >
    > > I thought it would be good to make it consistent and to reduce the
    > > number of bindings with same meaning on similar drivers.
    >
    > How about making the other one use "s5m8767,pmic-ext-control-gpios"
    > compatible instead of introducing a new one?

    But then we would introduce semi-generic binding with a driver-specific
    name.

    Anyway more drivers seem to use this kind of binding (tps65090, max8952,
    da9055, arizona) so maybe there is a point in making this generic?

    Best regards,
    Krzysztof



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2014-04-15 11:41    [W:4.211 / U:0.016 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site