From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Laxman Dewangan Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: pwm: DT: Add ramp delay for exponential voltage transition Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 22:43:37 +0530 Message-ID: <582B4241.9030009@nvidia.com> References: <1478281075-3498-1-git-send-email-ldewangan@nvidia.com> <20161114154807.j4oo4veslhknauxy@rob-hp-laptop> <582AF4B7.4050705@nvidia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Rob Herring Cc: Mark Brown , Mark Rutland , "linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , Douglas Anderson , Aleksandr Frid List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 15 November 2016 07:57 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 5:42 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote: >> On Monday 14 November 2016 09:18 PM, Rob Herring wrote: >>> On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 11:07:54PM +0530, Laxman Dewangan wrote: >>>> >>>> regulator >>>> +- pwm-regulator-voltage-ramp-time-us: Integer, voltage ramp time in >>> This is a really long name. Drop the 'pwm-regulator-' part as it is >>> redundant. The fact that it is PWM reg specific is captured as it is >>> documented that way. >>> >> We already have the regulator-ramp-delay from the regulator core. >> Just wanted to make this (pwm-regulator-voltage-ramp-time-us) for pwm >> specific. > Neither of these are very clear that one is linear and one is > exponential. Maybe you should use the existing property to express the > time and just add a boolean property like "voltage-ramp-exponential"? OK, this can work. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html