From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Brown Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 2/2] regulator: mt6323: Add support for MT6323 regulator Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 00:13:06 +0100 Message-ID: <20160128231306.GD4130@sirena.org.uk> References: <1453896059-44589-1-git-send-email-blogic@openwrt.org> <1453896059-44589-2-git-send-email-blogic@openwrt.org> <20160127144105.GQ6042@sirena.org.uk> <56AA5A5C.9080402@openwrt.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="C+ts3FVlLX8+P6JN" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <56AA5A5C.9080402@openwrt.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: John Crispin Cc: Liam Girdwood , Chen Zhong , Matthias Brugger , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org, HenryC Chen =?utf-8?B?KOmZs+W7uuixqik=?= List-Id: linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org --C+ts3FVlLX8+P6JN Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 07:13:48PM +0100, John Crispin wrote: > would the following two bindings be ok ? I would create patches to add them. > * regulator-allow-mode; or regulator-allow-change-mode; This seems redundant, if we have a list of valid modes presumably they can be used - same idea as with voltage setting. > * regulator-modes = ; I'm not convinced this binding makes sense, how would a user of the API (currently there are none in tree) know what the modes mean? It's a bit different when the user is supplying configuration for a specific regulator but this needs to be something that can be used by consumers. What are you actually trying to do with this? --C+ts3FVlLX8+P6JN Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWqqCBAAoJECTWi3JdVIfQMygH/Avl7NgcybqAMKGmvX2F2RJI WWCIYMnclibZD+dqnbazVdOCX1PtzlfRyC+oninbi5Lbo+bpTxI2wJsCUvYayOJs 6q9dIUH3QK4kMou+ryJMNcXj34rriiq5hfcqxbM46VoIkyoRTl+Fn6EQMYtmZr3n 4vFGpKOg+Jb0WlUR+VoyEFTQVhgcGEfwnZK0BPj13tj/kuOGywlZkE8Qq9QV25E+ TZosBE02lVE8jnVn8dugz05t1TsBO/LjXe2D7cHWR+rVQULILRYL/bAbko3VGDhg cnrnnz3mdMNmzFkv1yBjao5qUzuvRTOegcc3zM0KNaFQNM2EplkxzBC9mbItO0o= =K1eG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --C+ts3FVlLX8+P6JN-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: broonie@kernel.org (Mark Brown) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 00:13:06 +0100 Subject: [PATCH V4 2/2] regulator: mt6323: Add support for MT6323 regulator In-Reply-To: <56AA5A5C.9080402@openwrt.org> References: <1453896059-44589-1-git-send-email-blogic@openwrt.org> <1453896059-44589-2-git-send-email-blogic@openwrt.org> <20160127144105.GQ6042@sirena.org.uk> <56AA5A5C.9080402@openwrt.org> Message-ID: <20160128231306.GD4130@sirena.org.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 07:13:48PM +0100, John Crispin wrote: > would the following two bindings be ok ? I would create patches to add them. > * regulator-allow-mode; or regulator-allow-change-mode; This seems redundant, if we have a list of valid modes presumably they can be used - same idea as with voltage setting. > * regulator-modes = ; I'm not convinced this binding makes sense, how would a user of the API (currently there are none in tree) know what the modes mean? It's a bit different when the user is supplying configuration for a specific regulator but this needs to be something that can be used by consumers. What are you actually trying to do with this? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 473 bytes Desc: not available URL: