From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Boyd Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 7/7] ARM: dts: ifc6410: add inforce LVDS panel support Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 15:46:12 -0700 Message-ID: <55B957B4.40501@codeaurora.org> References: <1438087956-17307-1-git-send-email-srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org> <1438088076-17606-1-git-send-email-srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1438088076-17606-1-git-send-email-srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org> Sender: linux-arm-msm-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Srinivas Kandagatla Cc: agross@codeaurora.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, Rob Herring , Pawel Moll , Mark Rutland , Ian Campbell , Kumar Gala , Russell King , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Rob Clark List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 07/28/2015 05:54 AM, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote: > + > + panel_3p3v: panel_3p3v { > + compatible = "regulator-fixed"; > + pinctrl-0 = <&disp_en_gpios>; > + pinctrl-names = "default"; > + regulator-min-microvolt = <3300000>; > + regulator-max-microvolt = <3300000>; > + regulator-name = "panel_en_3p3v"; > + regulator-type = "voltage"; > + startup-delay-us = <0>; > + gpio = <&pm8921_gpio 36 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>; > + enable-active-high; > + regulator-boot-on; > + }; We should put gpio regulators into their own container in the root of the tree. Similar to what was done for 8960 gpio regulators. > + > + backlight: backlight{ > + pinctrl-0 = <&pwm_bl_gpios>; > + pinctrl-names = "default"; > + compatible = "gpio-backlight"; > + gpios = <&pm8921_gpio 26 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>; > + default-on; > + }; > + > + panel: auo,b101xtn01 { > + status = "okay"; > + compatible = "auo,b101xtn01"; > + > + ddc-i2c-bus = <&i2c3>; > + backlight = <&backlight>; > + power-supply = <&panel_3p3v>; > }; These two nodes shouldn't be under the SoC node. They don't have registers so they should be at the root of the tree. And we don't need to put labels twice on nodes. If we're modifying things in board specific dtsi files it should be fine to leave the label off if the label is in the SoC dtsi file. -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project