lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Apr]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 4/4] regulator: s5m8767: Use same binding for external control as in s2mps11
From
On 15 April 2014 14:25, Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com> wrote:
> 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.

We can have a IP specific name (first IP to have this property) common
across family of IPs.

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

In that case we could but probably not with samsung prefix.

--
With warm regards,
Sachin


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-04-15 12:21    [W:0.066 / U:41.408 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site