From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Krzysztof Kozlowski Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/14] mfd: max77686/802: Map regulator driver to its own of_node Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 14:07:54 +0100 Message-ID: <1414760874.7318.15.camel@AMDC1943> References: <1414668053-31370-1-git-send-email-k.kozlowski@samsung.com> <1414668053-31370-2-git-send-email-k.kozlowski@samsung.com> <20141031122330.GP18557@sirena.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-reply-to: <20141031122330.GP18557@sirena.org.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Mark Brown Cc: Samuel Ortiz , Lee Jones , Liam Girdwood , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ben Dooks , Kukjin Kim , Russell King , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Kyungmin Park , Marek Szyprowski , Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , Javier Martinez Canillas , Chanwoo Choi List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On pi=C4=85, 2014-10-31 at 12:23 +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 12:20:40PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > Add of_compatible fields for max77686 and max77802 regulator driver= s. > > The driver's node should be the same as voltage-regulators node. Th= is > > simplifies parsing of regulators init data from DTS. >=20 > No, this is broken. You're introducing an ABI break that conveys no > additional information, I can't see any reason why this should make i= t > simpler to parse init data (you've certainly not articulated one in t= he > changelog here) but even if it did you are changing the ABI incompati= bly > and convenience isn't a good reason to do that. The ABI won't be broken - both drivers would work fine with old and new DTB. However I agree that I should justify this more... Javier and you explained me using parent's device for rdev->dev so I think this change won't be needed and I'll just drop it. Thank you for feedback. > I'm getting very frustrated with what's going on with these drivers, > there seem to be a lot of rather large sets of patches spawning lots = of > discussion but also frequent review problems and very little actually > getting merged (look at the set of changes in the past few merge wind= ows > for example). There's something going wrong here. If I over-spammed you, then I am deeply sorry. Best regards, Krzysztof