Re: [PATCH] MFD: Change TWL6025 references to TWL6032

2013-06-20 Thread Samuel Ortiz 
Hi Oleksandr,

On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 03:24:02PM +0300, Oleksandr Kozaruk wrote:
 From: Graeme Gregory g...@slimlogic.co.uk
 
 The TWL6025 was never released beyond sample form and was replaced by
 the PhoenixLite range of chips - TWL6032. Change the references to
 reference the TWL6032 class and name the registers to twl6032 in line with
 an actual released chip name to avoid confusion.
 
 Currently there are no users of TWL6025 in the code.
 
 Signed-off-by: Graeme Gregory g...@slimlogic.co.uk
 Signed-off-by: Oleksandr Kozaruk oleksandr.koza...@ti.com
 Acked-by: Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org
 
 ---
 
 There are non-mainline branches that use twl6032 by its name (for example
 git://git.omapzoom.org/kernel/omap.git). There is intention to add support
 of twl6032 device in mainline, but we'd like to know if we can use twl6032
 instead of twl6025 in our new patches, that we are going to provide.
 Related discussion: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/2686331/
 
  .../bindings/regulator/twl-regulator.txt   |   26 +++
  .../devicetree/bindings/usb/twl-usb.txt|2 +-
  drivers/mfd/twl-core.c |   46 ++--
  drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c  |   76 
 ++--
  drivers/usb/phy/phy-twl6030-usb.c  |2 +-
  include/linux/i2c/twl.h|   30 
  6 files changed, 91 insertions(+), 91 deletions(-)
Applied to mfd-next, thanks.

Cheers,
Samuel.

-- 
Intel Open Source Technology Centre
http://oss.intel.com/
___
devicetree-discuss mailing list
devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss

Re: [PATCH] MFD: Change TWL6025 references to TWL6032

2013-06-19 Thread Mark Brown 
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 03:24:02PM +0300, Oleksandr Kozaruk wrote:

 There are non-mainline branches that use twl6032 by its name (for example
 git://git.omapzoom.org/kernel/omap.git). There is intention to add support
 of twl6032 device in mainline, but we'd like to know if we can use twl6032
 instead of twl6025 in our new patches, that we are going to provide.
 Related discussion: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/2686331/

It's always been OK to use the new name, the only question was if it was
better to keep the old name supported as well.  Given that the chips are
essentially nonexistant now your current approach seems sensible so

Reviwed-by: Mark Brown broo...@linaro.org


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
devicetree-discuss mailing list
devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss