From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Collins Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] regulator: dt-bindings: add QCOM RPMh regulator bindings Date: Wed, 2 May 2018 17:13:00 -0700 Message-ID: References: <39b676d2ba7dac2436196cc5a090c6f151498dc8.1523673467.git.collinsd@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Doug Anderson Cc: Mark Brown , Liam Girdwood , Rob Herring , Mark Rutland , linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, Linux ARM , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, LKML , Rajendra Nayak , Stephen Boyd List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 05/02/2018 09:37 AM, Doug Anderson wrote: > On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 7:50 PM, David Collins wrote: >> +- vdd_l26-supply >> +- vdd_lvs1_lvs2-supply >> +- vdd_lvs1_lvs2-supply >> + Usage: optional (PM8998 only) >> + Value type: >> + Definition: phandle of the parent supply regulator of one or more of the >> + regulators for this PMIC. > > One small additional nit here is that "vdd_lvs1_lvs2-supply" is listed twice. I'll remove the duplicate. > Also on the schematics (and in the PM8998 datasheet) I have this is > "VIN_LVS_1_2". It seems like you should be consistent here and call > this "vin-lvs-1-2-supply". I was trying to keep the naming consistent within device tree binding documentation for LVS vs LDO and SMPS (e.g. 'vdd' vs 'vin' prefix). I suppose that I can change this to match the hardware documentation pin name. I can also change '_' to '-' in the supply names if that is preferred. Take care, David -- The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project