Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] mfd: max77686: Don't suggest in binding to use a deprecated property
Hello Mark, On 07/27/2015 12:33 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 12:28:07PM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: >> On 07/20/2015 12:12 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > >>> This PMIC uses a single I2C address for all the regulators and these are >>> controlled by writing to different I2C register addresses. So the regulator >>> nodes don't have a reg property in this case. > >>> By looking at other regulators bindings, besides the generic regulator.txt >>> and fixed-regulator.txt DT bindings, there are only 5 (out of 40) that use >>> the node-name@unit-address convention mentioned in the ePAPR document. > >>> AFAICT all these are for regulators that are actually in different addresses >>> but I could be wrong so let's see what Mark says. > >> Any opinions on this? > > I just don't care, this is just syntactic noise which has no practical > meaning as far as I can tell. > thanks, I'll then leave the regulator's node name as is in the patch since that is consistent with the rest of the regulator DT bindings. Best regards, -- Javier Martinez Canillas Open Source Group Samsung Research America -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] mfd: max77686: Don't suggest in binding to use a deprecated property
On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 12:28:07PM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > On 07/20/2015 12:12 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > > This PMIC uses a single I2C address for all the regulators and these are > > controlled by writing to different I2C register addresses. So the regulator > > nodes don't have a reg property in this case. > > By looking at other regulators bindings, besides the generic regulator.txt > > and fixed-regulator.txt DT bindings, there are only 5 (out of 40) that use > > the node-name@unit-address convention mentioned in the ePAPR document. > > AFAICT all these are for regulators that are actually in different addresses > > but I could be wrong so let's see what Mark says. > Any opinions on this? I just don't care, this is just syntactic noise which has no practical meaning as far as I can tell. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] mfd: max77686: Don't suggest in binding to use a deprecated property
Hello Mark, On 07/20/2015 12:12 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > Hello Lee, > > Thanks a lot for your feedback. > > On 07/20/2015 10:10 AM, Lee Jones wrote: >> On Fri, 17 Jul 2015, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: >> >>> The regulator-compatible property from the regulator DT binding was >>> deprecated. But the max77686 DT binding doc still suggest to use it >>> instead of the regulator node name's which is the correct approach. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas >>> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski >> >> By convention shouldn't this be buck@1, or something? >> >> Need Mark to look at this. >> > > That's a very good question, the ePAPR doc says: > > "The unit-address must match the first address specified in the reg property > of the node. If the node has no reg property, the @ and unit-address must be > omitted and the node-name alone differentiates the node from other nodes at > the same level in the tree" > > This PMIC uses a single I2C address for all the regulators and these are > controlled by writing to different I2C register addresses. So the regulator > nodes don't have a reg property in this case. > > By looking at other regulators bindings, besides the generic regulator.txt > and fixed-regulator.txt DT bindings, there are only 5 (out of 40) that use > the node-name@unit-address convention mentioned in the ePAPR document. > > AFAICT all these are for regulators that are actually in different addresses > but I could be wrong so let's see what Mark says. > Any opinions on this? thanks a lot and best regards, -- Javier Martinez Canillas Open Source Group Samsung Research America -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] mfd: max77686: Don't suggest in binding to use a deprecated property
Hello Lee, Thanks a lot for your feedback. On 07/20/2015 10:10 AM, Lee Jones wrote: > On Fri, 17 Jul 2015, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > >> The regulator-compatible property from the regulator DT binding was >> deprecated. But the max77686 DT binding doc still suggest to use it >> instead of the regulator node name's which is the correct approach. >> >> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas >> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski > > By convention shouldn't this be buck@1, or something? > > Need Mark to look at this. > That's a very good question, the ePAPR doc says: "The unit-address must match the first address specified in the reg property of the node. If the node has no reg property, the @ and unit-address must be omitted and the node-name alone differentiates the node from other nodes at the same level in the tree" This PMIC uses a single I2C address for all the regulators and these are controlled by writing to different I2C register addresses. So the regulator nodes don't have a reg property in this case. By looking at other regulators bindings, besides the generic regulator.txt and fixed-regulator.txt DT bindings, there are only 5 (out of 40) that use the node-name@unit-address convention mentioned in the ePAPR document. AFAICT all these are for regulators that are actually in different addresses but I could be wrong so let's see what Mark says. Best regards, -- Javier Martinez Canillas Open Source Group Samsung Research America -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] mfd: max77686: Don't suggest in binding to use a deprecated property
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> The regulator-compatible property from the regulator DT binding was
> deprecated. But the max77686 DT binding doc still suggest to use it
> instead of the regulator node name's which is the correct approach.
>
> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas
> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski
By convention shouldn't this be buck@1, or something?
Need Mark to look at this.
> ---
>
> Changes in v2:
> - Add Krzysztof Kozlowski Reviewed-by tag in patch #1.
>
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/max77686.txt | 11 ---
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/max77686.txt
> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/max77686.txt
> index 163bd81a4607..8221102d3fc2 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/max77686.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/max77686.txt
> @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ Optional node:
> };
> refer Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/regulator.txt
>
> - The regulator-compatible property of regulator should initialized with
> string
> + The regulator node's name should be initialized with a string
> to get matched with their hardware counterparts as follow:
>
> -LDOn : for LDOs, where n can lie in range 1 to 26.
> @@ -55,16 +55,14 @@ Example:
> reg = <0x09>;
>
> voltage-regulators {
> - ldo11_reg {
> - regulator-compatible = "LDO11";
> + ldo11_reg: LDO11 {
> regulator-name = "vdd_ldo11";
> regulator-min-microvolt = <190>;
> regulator-max-microvolt = <190>;
> regulator-always-on;
> };
>
> - buck1_reg {
> - regulator-compatible = "BUCK1";
> + buck1_reg: BUCK1 {
> regulator-name = "vdd_mif";
> regulator-min-microvolt = <95>;
> regulator-max-microvolt = <130>;
> @@ -72,8 +70,7 @@ Example:
> regulator-boot-on;
> };
>
> - buck9_reg {
> - regulator-compatible = "BUCK9";
> + buck9_reg: BUCK9 {
> regulator-name = "CAM_ISP_CORE_1.2V";
> regulator-min-microvolt = <100>;
> regulator-max-microvolt = <120>;
--
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
