From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Javier Martinez Canillas Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] mfd: max77686: Don't suggest in binding to use a deprecated property Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 12:28:07 +0200 Message-ID: <55B607B7.6050803@osg.samsung.com> References: <1437114567-17629-1-git-send-email-javier@osg.samsung.com> <1437114567-17629-2-git-send-email-javier@osg.samsung.com> <20150720081020.GD3061@x1> <55ACC986.5040408@osg.samsung.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <55ACC986.5040408@osg.samsung.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Mark Brown Cc: Lee Jones , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, Sergei Shtylyov , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Krzysztof Kozlowski , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Hello Mark, On 07/20/2015 12:12 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > Hello Lee, > > Thanks a lot for your feedback. > > On 07/20/2015 10:10 AM, Lee Jones wrote: >> On Fri, 17 Jul 2015, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: >> >>> The regulator-compatible property from the regulator DT binding was >>> deprecated. But the max77686 DT binding doc still suggest to use it >>> instead of the regulator node name's which is the correct approach. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas >>> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski >> >> By convention shouldn't this be buck@1, or something? >> >> Need Mark to look at this. >> > > That's a very good question, the ePAPR doc says: > > "The unit-address must match the first address specified in the reg property > of the node. If the node has no reg property, the @ and unit-address must be > omitted and the node-name alone differentiates the node from other nodes at > the same level in the tree" > > This PMIC uses a single I2C address for all the regulators and these are > controlled by writing to different I2C register addresses. So the regulator > nodes don't have a reg property in this case. > > By looking at other regulators bindings, besides the generic regulator.txt > and fixed-regulator.txt DT bindings, there are only 5 (out of 40) that use > the node-name@unit-address convention mentioned in the ePAPR document. > > AFAICT all these are for regulators that are actually in different addresses > but I could be wrong so let's see what Mark says. > Any opinions on this? thanks a lot and best regards, -- Javier Martinez Canillas Open Source Group Samsung Research America