From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matti Vaittinen Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/6] regulator: bd71837: Devicetree bindings for BD71837 regulators Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 10:21:45 +0300 Message-ID: <20180531072145.GH13528@localhost.localdomain> References: <318229ca7ffcceb090fc8d0c43f887decc3082f0.1527669443.git.matti.vaittinen@fi.rohmeurope.com> <20180531030436.GB16122@rob-hp-laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180531030436.GB16122@rob-hp-laptop> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Rob Herring Cc: Matti Vaittinen , mturquette@baylibre.com, sboyd@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, lee.jones@linaro.org, lgirdwood@gmail.com, broonie@kernel.org, mazziesaccount@gmail.com, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mikko.mutanen@fi.rohmeurope.com, heikki.haikola@fi.rohmeurope.com List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 10:04:36PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 11:42:32AM +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote: > > Document devicetree bindings for ROHM BD71837 PMIC regulators. > > +ROHM BD71837 Power Management Integrated Circuit (PMIC) regulator bindings > > + > > +BD71837MWV is a programmable Power Management > > +IC (PMIC) for powering single-core, dual-core, and > > +quad-core SoC’s such as NXP-i.MX 8M. It is optimized > > +for low BOM cost and compact solution footprint. It > > +integrates 8 Buck regulators and 7 LDO’s to provide all > > +the power rails required by the SoC and the commonly > > +used peripherals. > > Why duplicate this from the core binding? I can remove this. I just thought it is nice to see what this chip is doing even without opening the MFD binding doc. Just same question as in the other patch - how should I deliver the change? This was already applied to Mark's tree - should I do new patch on top of the Mark's tree - or do patch against tree which does not yet contain this change? If I do it on top of Mark's tree then Mark should apply it, right? If I do it against some other three, thene there will be merge conflict with Mark, right? > > Otherwise, > > Reviewed-by: Rob Herring Thanks! Br, Matti Vaittinen