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
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
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
>>>
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
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
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
---
Changes in v2