On 02/03/13 11:35, Mark Brown wrote: > On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 12:34:40PM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote: > >> Is Palmas a family of chips rather than a single chip then? That >> implies that the DT would need two compatible values, e.g.: > Yes. > >> compatible = "ti,12345", "ti,palmas"; >> ... where "12345" is the actual chip name. >> ... rather than just the following which IIRC was in the example in >> the DT binding document in another patch series: >> compatible = "ti,palmas"; > Indeed, and in fact this has already been done for the I2C device ID > table. We should have the same list of devices in the OF IDs. Currently all members of the palmas family I know about (from memory).
For palmas :- twl6035, twl6037, tps65913, tps65914 For palmas-charger :- twl6036, tps80036 All with varying IP blocks or hardware configuration. Mainly this is due to misunderstanding I had of DT definitions when I originally read docs, when driver project commenced. I will work with Ian, Laxman, Keerthy and get these updated. Should these also flow down into the various drivers for the IP blocks? eg. compatible = "ti,twl6035-regulator", "ti,palmas-regulator"; Graeme -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/