From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Milo Kim Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 9/9] regulator: add LM363X driver Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 16:56:03 +0900 Message-ID: <56975493.7050900@ti.com> References: <1448521025-2796-1-git-send-email-milo.kim@ti.com> <1448521025-2796-10-git-send-email-milo.kim@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1448521025-2796-10-git-send-email-milo.kim@ti.com> Sender: linux-leds-owner@vger.kernel.org To: lee.jones@linaro.org, broonie@kernel.org Cc: robh+dt@kernel.org, j.anaszewski@samsung.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-leds@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Lee and Mark, On 11/26/2015 03:57 PM, Milo Kim wrote: > LM363X regulator driver supports LM3631 and LM3632. > LM3631 has 5 regulators. LM3632 provides 3 regulators. > One boost output and LDOs are used for the display module. > Boost voltage is configurable but always on. > Supported operations for LDOs are enabled/disabled and voltage change. > > Two LDOs of LM3632 can be controlled by external pins. > Those are configured through the DT properties. > > Cc: Mark Brown > Cc: Lee Jones > Cc: Jacek Anaszewski > Cc: Rob Herring > Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org > Cc: linux-leds@vger.kernel.org > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Signed-off-by: Milo Kim I'm creating the 3rd patch-set but this driver is found in linux-next tree. And Axel Lin has patched this driver. In my patch v3, modified part is DT properties for external enable pins. (Use '-gpios' instead of '-gpio') diff --git a/drivers/regulator/lm363x-regulator.c b/drivers/regulator/lm363x-regulator.c index f53e633..4a11290 100644 --- a/drivers/regulator/lm363x-regulator.c +++ b/drivers/regulator/lm363x-regulator.c @@ -227,9 +227,9 @@ static int lm363x_regulator_of_get_enable_gpio(struct device_node *np, int id) */ switch (id) { case LM3632_LDO_POS: - return of_get_named_gpio(np, "ti,lcm-en1-gpio", 0); + return of_get_named_gpio(np, "ti,lcm-en1-gpios", 0); case LM3632_LDO_NEG: - return of_get_named_gpio(np, "ti,lcm-en2-gpio", 0); + return of_get_named_gpio(np, "ti,lcm-en2-gpios", 0); default: return -EINVAL; } So, I'd like to know which is better for you. a) Create a patch based on linux-next tree (the above patch) Or b) Re-generate a patch based on linux-mfd tree Best regards, Milo