lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Feb]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    Date
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 06/17] dt_bindings: regulator: Add ROHM BD71815 PMIC regulators
    On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 7:10 AM Vaittinen, Matti
    <Matti.Vaittinen@fi.rohmeurope.com> wrote:
    >
    > Hello Again Rob,
    >
    > And thanks for reviewing the bindings!
    >
    > On Mon, 2021-02-08 at 20:24 -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
    > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 09:17:09AM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
    > > > Add binding documentation for regulators on ROHM BD71815 PMIC.
    > > > 5 bucks, 7 LDOs and a boost for LED.
    > > >
    > > > Signed-off-by: Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@fi.rohmeurope.com>
    > > > ---
    >
    > snip
    >
    > > > +
    > > > + rohm,dvs-run-voltage:
    > >
    > > Use standard unit suffix.
    > >
    > > > + description:
    > > > + PMIC "RUN" state voltage in uV when PMIC HW states are
    > > > used. See
    > > > + comments below for bucks/LDOs which support this. 0
    > > > means
    > > > + regulator should be disabled at RUN state.
    > > > + $ref: "/schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32"
    > >
    > > And then drop this.
    >
    > Quote from v1 review:
    >
    > > > > > > > + rohm,dvs-run-voltage:
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > These should have a unit suffix.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > I know but these are existing properties. I'd like to re-use
    > them
    > > > > > as
    > > > > > they have exported parser helpers - and I am unsure what kind
    > of
    > > > > > breakages changing them would cause. (The BD71837/BD71847 which
    > > > > > introduced these properties are one of the PMICs which are
    > pretty
    > > > > > widely used.)
    > > > >
    > > > > Okay. Hopefully I remember next time I see this...
    > > >
    > > > Actually, I think I can add support for rohm,dvs-run-microvolt and
    > > > fellows to these same helpers so new devices can use appropriately
    > > > named properties. That would mean there is duplicate properties for
    > > > same purpose - but maybe it allows us to eventually deprecate the
    > old
    > > > ones... Which of these options would you prefer?
    > >
    > > Just keep the existing ones.
    >
    > Seem you predicted this XD If you still think it's Ok to keep the
    > existing ones, then I'll take this an ack, Ok?

    Ah right,

    Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2021-02-09 14:54    [W:4.172 / U:0.632 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site