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 11:45:41 -0600 Message-ID: <522F5AC5.90101@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> <522F5815.4070109@wwwdotorg.org> <20130910173830.GA4708@sirena.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130910173830.GA4708@sirena.org.uk> Sender: linux-doc-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 11:38 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 11:34:13AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: > >> 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? > > That's for a ramp between two voltages rather than the on/off voltage, > though I had forgotten about it. Hrm. enable-ramp-delay? Sounds reasonable. It's a little long but regulator-enable-ramp-delay might be better since all the common regulator properties to date are named regulator-xxx.