From: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: gpio-regulator: Add required regulator-type property
Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 00:06:23 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2193707.R9XiqBsnU4@avalon> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2248657.5UVkYxaC6z@avalon>
Hi Mark,
On Thursday 05 December 2013 01:47:04 Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> On Thursday 05 December 2013 00:09:28 Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 04:44:52PM +0100, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > The gpio-regulator driver requires the regulator-type property to be
> > > present. Document it as required in the DT bindings.
> >
> > It does? That seems needless. It should just default to voltage and
> > provide a way override to current, though frankly I'd be astonished to see
> > a GPIO controlled current regulator at all so I'm not sure I'd even
> > bother writing the code for that until someone needs it. As it is this
> > will most likely just be noise in the DT files and wasted cycles parsing
> > the property.
>
> I'm fine with that. The property should still be documented in the DT
> bindings as optional though. Or be removed completely until a
> GPIO-controlled current regulator is needed.
What's the status of this ? The gpio regulator driver now defaults to voltage
regulator when the regulator-type property is not set. Should the DT bindings
document the property as optional (I can submit a patch for that), or do you
consider that the gpio regulator driver should support voltage regulators only
when used with DT, and just keep the regulator-type property support in the
driver for backward compatibility ?
> > Please CC maintainers...
>
> My bad, sorry.
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com (Laurent Pinchart)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: gpio-regulator: Add required regulator-type property
Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 02:06:23 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2193707.R9XiqBsnU4@avalon> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2248657.5UVkYxaC6z@avalon>
Hi Mark,
On Thursday 05 December 2013 01:47:04 Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> On Thursday 05 December 2013 00:09:28 Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 04:44:52PM +0100, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > The gpio-regulator driver requires the regulator-type property to be
> > > present. Document it as required in the DT bindings.
> >
> > It does? That seems needless. It should just default to voltage and
> > provide a way override to current, though frankly I'd be astonished to see
> > a GPIO controlled current regulator at all so I'm not sure I'd even
> > bother writing the code for that until someone needs it. As it is this
> > will most likely just be noise in the DT files and wasted cycles parsing
> > the property.
>
> I'm fine with that. The property should still be documented in the DT
> bindings as optional though. Or be removed completely until a
> GPIO-controlled current regulator is needed.
What's the status of this ? The gpio regulator driver now defaults to voltage
regulator when the regulator-type property is not set. Should the DT bindings
document the property as optional (I can submit a patch for that), or do you
consider that the gpio regulator driver should support voltage regulators only
when used with DT, and just keep the regulator-type property support in the
driver for backward compatibility ?
> > Please CC maintainers...
>
> My bad, sorry.
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: gpio-regulator: Add required regulator-type property
Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 02:06:23 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2193707.R9XiqBsnU4@avalon> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2248657.5UVkYxaC6z@avalon>
Hi Mark,
On Thursday 05 December 2013 01:47:04 Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> On Thursday 05 December 2013 00:09:28 Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 04:44:52PM +0100, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > The gpio-regulator driver requires the regulator-type property to be
> > > present. Document it as required in the DT bindings.
> >
> > It does? That seems needless. It should just default to voltage and
> > provide a way override to current, though frankly I'd be astonished to see
> > a GPIO controlled current regulator at all so I'm not sure I'd even
> > bother writing the code for that until someone needs it. As it is this
> > will most likely just be noise in the DT files and wasted cycles parsing
> > the property.
>
> I'm fine with that. The property should still be documented in the DT
> bindings as optional though. Or be removed completely until a
> GPIO-controlled current regulator is needed.
What's the status of this ? The gpio regulator driver now defaults to voltage
regulator when the regulator-type property is not set. Should the DT bindings
document the property as optional (I can submit a patch for that), or do you
consider that the gpio regulator driver should support voltage regulators only
when used with DT, and just keep the regulator-type property support in the
driver for backward compatibility ?
> > Please CC maintainers...
>
> My bad, sorry.
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-05-13 0:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-11-28 15:44 [PATCH 0/2] Document GPIO regulator regulator-type property and use it Laurent Pinchart
2013-11-28 15:44 ` Laurent Pinchart
2013-11-28 15:44 ` Laurent Pinchart
2013-11-28 15:44 ` [PATCH 1/2] regulator: gpio-regulator: Add required regulator-type property Laurent Pinchart
2013-11-28 15:44 ` Laurent Pinchart
2013-11-28 15:44 ` Laurent Pinchart
2013-12-05 0:09 ` Mark Brown
2013-12-05 0:09 ` Mark Brown
2013-12-05 0:09 ` Mark Brown
2013-12-05 0:47 ` Laurent Pinchart
2013-12-05 0:47 ` Laurent Pinchart
2013-12-05 0:47 ` Laurent Pinchart
2014-05-13 0:06 ` Laurent Pinchart [this message]
2014-05-13 0:06 ` Laurent Pinchart
2014-05-13 0:06 ` Laurent Pinchart
2014-05-13 16:59 ` Mark Brown
2014-05-13 16:59 ` Mark Brown
2014-05-13 16:59 ` Mark Brown
2014-05-21 13:44 ` Laurent Pinchart
2014-05-21 13:44 ` Laurent Pinchart
2014-05-21 13:44 ` Laurent Pinchart
2014-05-21 14:22 ` Mark Brown
2014-05-21 14:22 ` Mark Brown
2014-05-21 14:22 ` Mark Brown
2013-11-28 15:44 ` [PATCH 2/2] ARM: shmobile: armadillo: Set vccq_sdhi0 regulator type in DT Laurent Pinchart
2013-11-28 15:44 ` Laurent Pinchart
2013-11-28 15:44 ` Laurent Pinchart
2013-12-05 3:45 ` Simon Horman
2013-12-05 3:45 ` Simon Horman
2013-12-05 3:45 ` Simon Horman
2013-12-05 5:56 ` Laurent Pinchart
2013-12-05 5:56 ` Laurent Pinchart
2013-12-05 5:56 ` Laurent Pinchart
2013-12-05 6:55 ` Simon Horman
2013-12-05 6:55 ` Simon Horman
2013-12-05 6:55 ` Simon Horman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=2193707.R9XiqBsnU4@avalon \
--to=laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.