From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Cc: Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS"
<devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
Leonard Crestez <leonard.crestez@nxp.com>,
Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: fixed: Use more standard GPIO binding
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 14:54:27 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181004135427.GE6412@sirena.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACRpkdZZHYSRXktPLHKRc4Afsegn4q3rOmcPMhXh5chC1jH-JQ@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 882 bytes --]
On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 01:32:13PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 12:50 PM Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 11:06:54AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > > Optional properties:
> > > -- gpio: gpio to use for enable control
> > > +- gpios: gpio to use for enable control
> > Are we supposed to be able to have just plain gpios as a standards
> > conforming property or would best practice be to call it enable-gpios or
> > something?
> Oh I didn't think of that really. The gpio-regulator indeed uses
> enable-gpio for the same thing. But it complicates things codewise,
> as the GPIO line is also optional. I'm a bit uncertain, I tend
> to think just "gpios" is fine when the usage is unambigous. but
> I don't know what the DT maintainers think.
Right, well from my point of view -gpio is perfectly fine also so... :)
Rob?
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-10-04 13:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-10-04 9:06 [PATCH] regulator: fixed: Use more standard GPIO binding Linus Walleij
2018-10-04 10:50 ` Mark Brown
2018-10-04 11:32 ` Linus Walleij
2018-10-04 13:54 ` Mark Brown [this message]
2018-10-05 20:17 ` Rob Herring
2018-10-07 21:00 ` Linus Walleij
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20181004135427.GE6412@sirena.org.uk \
--to=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=leonard.crestez@nxp.com \
--cc=lgirdwood@gmail.com \
--cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=robh@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).