Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] mfd: max77686: Don't suggest in binding to use a deprecated property

[Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>]

Hello Mark,

On 07/20/2015 12:12 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> Hello Lee,
> 
> Thanks a lot for your feedback.
> 
> On 07/20/2015 10:10 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Jul 2015, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>>
>>> The regulator-compatible property from the regulator DT binding was
>>> deprecated. But the max77686 DT binding doc still suggest to use it
>>> instead of the regulator node name's which is the correct approach.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
>>
>> By convention shouldn't this be buck@1, or something?
>>
>> Need Mark to look at this.
>>
> 
> That's a very good question, the ePAPR doc says:
> 
> "The unit-address must match the first address specified in the reg property
> of the node. If the node has no reg property, the @ and unit-address must be
> omitted and the node-name alone differentiates the node from other nodes at
> the same level in the tree"
> 
> This PMIC uses a single I2C address for all the regulators and these are
> controlled by writing to different I2C register addresses. So the regulator
> nodes don't have a reg property in this case.
> 
> By looking at other regulators bindings, besides the generic regulator.txt
> and fixed-regulator.txt DT bindings, there are only 5 (out of 40) that use
> the node-name@unit-address convention mentioned in the ePAPR document.
> 
> AFAICT all these are for regulators that are actually in different addresses
> but I could be wrong so let's see what Mark says.
> 

Any opinions on this?

thanks a lot and best regards,
-- 
Javier Martinez Canillas
Open Source Group
Samsung Research America