Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] regulator: adapt fixed regulator driver to dt

[Olof Johansson]

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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/