| Message ID | 1437114567-17629-2-git-send-email-javier@osg.samsung.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
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 <javier@osg.samsung.com> > Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com> 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 = <1900000>; > regulator-max-microvolt = <1900000>; > regulator-always-on; > }; > > - buck1_reg { > - regulator-compatible = "BUCK1"; > + buck1_reg: BUCK1 { > regulator-name = "vdd_mif"; > regulator-min-microvolt = <950000>; > regulator-max-microvolt = <1300000>; > @@ -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 = <1000000>; > regulator-max-microvolt = <1200000>;
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 <javier@osg.samsung.com> >> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com> > > 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,
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 <javier@osg.samsung.com> >>> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com> >> >> 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,
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.
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,
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 = <1900000>; regulator-max-microvolt = <1900000>; regulator-always-on; }; - buck1_reg { - regulator-compatible = "BUCK1"; + buck1_reg: BUCK1 { regulator-name = "vdd_mif"; regulator-min-microvolt = <950000>; regulator-max-microvolt = <1300000>; @@ -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 = <1000000>; regulator-max-microvolt = <1200000>;