From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Brown Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] regulator: adapt fixed regulator driver to dt Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 21:01:52 +0000 Message-ID: <20111104210151.GA2541@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> References: <1319702185-16108-1-git-send-email-rnayak@ti.com> <1319702185-16108-3-git-send-email-rnayak@ti.com> <20111104203422.GB3918@quad.lixom.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20111104203422.GB3918@quad.lixom.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Olof Johansson Cc: Rajendra Nayak , grant.likely@secretlab.ca, patches@linaro.org, tony@atomide.com, devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, lrg@ti.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.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?