From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sachin Kamat Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] regulator: s5m8767: Use same binding for external control as in s2mps11 Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 14:02:02 +0530 Message-ID: References: <1397462949-22379-1-git-send-email-k.kozlowski@samsung.com> <1397462949-22379-5-git-send-email-k.kozlowski@samsung.com> <20140414211106.GC12304@sirena.org.uk> <1397549539.29169.2.camel@AMDC1943> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1397549539.29169.2.camel@AMDC1943> Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Krzysztof Kozlowski Cc: Mark Brown , Sangbeom Kim , Liam Girdwood , Samuel Ortiz , Lee Jones , LKML , Rob Herring , Pawel Moll , Mark Rutland , Ian Campbell , Kumar Gala , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , linux-samsung-soc , Kyungmin Park , Marek Szyprowski , Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , Tomasz Figa List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 15 April 2014 13:42, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On wto, 2014-04-15 at 13:26 +0530, Sachin Kamat wrote: >> On 15 April 2014 02:41, Mark Brown wrote: >> > On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 10:09:09AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> > >> >> - - s5m8767,pmic-ext-control-gpios: (optional) GPIO specifier for one >> >> + - samsung,ext-control-gpios: (optional) GPIO specifier for one >> >> GPIO controlling this regulator (enable/disable); This is >> >> valid only for buck9. >> > >> > This is an incompatible change. It's OK to deprecate the old property >> > but it's bad form to just remove it. >> >> I agree with Mark. Also, there is no need to make it generic. > > I thought it would be good to make it consistent and to reduce the > number of bindings with same meaning on similar drivers. How about making the other one use "s5m8767,pmic-ext-control-gpios" compatible instead of introducing a new one? -- With warm regards, Sachin