From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Warren Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] regulator: core: add support for configuring turn-on time through constraints Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 11:34:13 -0600 Message-ID: <522F5815.4070109@wwwdotorg.org> References: <1378811888-2268-1-git-send-email-ldewangan@nvidia.com> <1378811888-2268-2-git-send-email-ldewangan@nvidia.com> <522F3691.3090805@wwwdotorg.org> <20130910165153.GQ29403@sirena.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130910165153.GQ29403@sirena.org.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Mark Brown Cc: Laxman Dewangan , rob.herring@calxeda.com, mark.rutland@arm.com, rob@landley.net, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lgirdwood@gmail.com List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 09/10/2013 10:51 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 09:11:13AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: > >>> +- regulator-enable-time: Turn ON time for regulator(in uS) > >> Bike-shedding slightly: This isn't really the time it takes to >> enable a regulator, but the time the voltage takes to become >> stable, or settle. Perhaps name the property >> regulator-settle-time/regulator-settle-delay? > > The normal term would be ramp delay. It's not usually the time > taken to completely settle, it's usually quoted as the time taken > to reach within some proportion of the target voltage. I notice there's a regulator-ramp-delay property, already documented right above this new property. Is this a conflicting usage of the same term, or should that existing property just be used in this case too?