From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com (Mark Brown)
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 21:01:52 +0000
Subject: [PATCH v3 2/4] regulator: adapt fixed regulator driver to dt
In-Reply-To: <20111104203422.GB3918@quad.lixom.net>
References: <1319702185-16108-1-git-send-email-rnayak@ti.com>
	<1319702185-16108-3-git-send-email-rnayak@ti.com>
	<20111104203422.GB3918@quad.lixom.net>
Message-ID: <20111104210151.GA2541@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 01:34:22PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:

> Shouldn't a fixed regulator just be a subset of a fixed one? If so, should the
> binding be merged with that one?

No, the fixed voltage regultor is a superset of a general regulator - it
has additional information like the voltage it supplies and the optional
enable GPIO.

> > +- regulator-fixed-enabled-at-boot: 1 = yes, 0 = no

> Same here, you can drop the prefix. Also, the regular regulators use
> "regulator-name" for the supply name, it would make sense to reuse the same
> naming here, right?

I'm having a hard time associating your second comment with the property
being discussed - could you clarify please?