From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: rklein@nvidia.com (Rhyland Klein)
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 16:45:09 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] ARM: tegra: Add charger subnode to tps65090 node
In-Reply-To: <519A763F.7030906@wwwdotorg.org>
References: <1365623505-6309-1-git-send-email-rklein@nvidia.com>
 <5196C3F2.8070204@wwwdotorg.org> <519A4027.2020801@nvidia.com>
 <519A4108.2040606@wwwdotorg.org> <519A42A7.5080208@nvidia.com>
 <519A763F.7030906@wwwdotorg.org>
Message-ID: <519A8B55.9080703@nvidia.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 5/20/2013 3:15 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 05/20/2013 09:35 AM, Rhyland Klein wrote:
>> On 5/20/2013 11:28 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>> On 05/20/2013 09:24 AM, Rhyland Klein wrote:
>>>> On 5/17/2013 7:57 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>>>> On 04/10/2013 01:51 PM, Rhyland Klein wrote:
>>>>>> The charger is now represented by a distinct subnode of the tps65090
>>>>>> device. Add this node and enable low current charging with it.
>>>>>
>>>>> What's the status of the TPS60590 bindings; are they agreed upon by
>>>>> NVIDIA, TI, and SlimLogic yet? In other words, is this patch still
>>>>> something I should apply for 3.11, or does it need to be reworked?
>>>>
>>>> I haven't seen any discussion with slimlogic or TI about the tps65090.
>>>> As far as I know the bindings for this driver haven't changed.
>>>>
>>>> Laxman, do you think the work on the palmas driver will impact the
>>>> design of the bindings for the tps65090?
>>>
>>> Sorry, perhaps I'm confusing two different chips. If TPS65090 isn't
>>> Palmas, then ignore my question. In which case, I suppose I should just
>>> apply your patch then?
>>>
>>
>> I would say yes. The design of having the child node this way was how we
>> had agreed worked best. The only reason I would see a significant reason
>> to change this, is if something was decided that all mfd devices should
>> start to follow some pattern which differed, which would mean changing
>> existing bindings and therefore is unlikely.
> 
> OK, I have applied this patch to Tegra's for-3.11/dt branch. I also sent
> a patch to actually enable the new driver in tegra_defconfig.
> 

thanks, that was the next patch I was going to send :) Beat me to it.

-rhyland

-- 
nvpublic