[PATCH] regulator: tps6586x: correct vin pin for sm0/sm1/sm2

[PATCH] regulator: tps6586x: correct vin pin for sm0/sm1/sm2

[Laxman Dewangan]

As per datasheet, the vin pin for the regulator is named
as vin_sm0, vin_sm1, vin_sm2 for sm0, sm1 and sm2 respectively.

Correcting the names in driver and documentation to match with
datasheet.

Signed-off-by: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com>
Reported-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
---
 .../devicetree/bindings/regulator/tps6586x.txt     |   12 ++++++------
 drivers/regulator/tps6586x-regulator.c             |    8 +++++---
 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/tps6586x.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/tps6586x.txt
index d156e1b..da80c2a 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/tps6586x.txt
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/tps6586x.txt
@@ -9,9 +9,9 @@ Required properties:
 - regulators: list of regulators provided by this controller, must have
   property "regulator-compatible" to match their hardware counterparts:
   sm[0-2], ldo[0-9] and ldo_rtc
-- sm0-supply: The input supply for the SM0.
-- sm1-supply: The input supply for the SM1.
-- sm2-supply: The input supply for the SM2.
+- vin-sm0-supply: The input supply for the SM0.
+- vin-sm1-supply: The input supply for the SM1.
+- vin-sm2-supply: The input supply for the SM2.
 - vinldo01-supply: The input supply for the LDO1 and LDO2
 - vinldo23-supply: The input supply for the LDO2 and LDO3
 - vinldo4-supply: The input supply for the LDO4
@@ -30,9 +30,9 @@ Example:
 		#gpio-cells = <2>;
 		gpio-controller;
 
-		sm0-supply = <&some_reg>;
-		sm1-supply = <&some_reg>;
-		sm2-supply = <&some_reg>;
+		vin-sm0-supply = <&some_reg>;
+		vin-sm1-supply = <&some_reg>;
+		vin-sm2-supply = <&some_reg>;
 		vinldo01-supply = <...>;
 		vinldo23-supply = <...>;
 		vinldo4-supply = <...>;
diff --git a/drivers/regulator/tps6586x-regulator.c b/drivers/regulator/tps6586x-regulator.c
index e6da90a..19241fc 100644
--- a/drivers/regulator/tps6586x-regulator.c
+++ b/drivers/regulator/tps6586x-regulator.c
@@ -240,14 +240,16 @@ static struct tps6586x_regulator tps6586x_regulator[] = {
 	TPS6586X_LDO(LDO_9, "vinldo9", ldo, SUPPLYV6, 3, 3, ENE, 7, ENE, 7),
 	TPS6586X_LDO(LDO_RTC, NULL, ldo, SUPPLYV4, 3, 3, V4, 7, V4, 7),
 	TPS6586X_LDO(LDO_1, "vinldo01", dvm, SUPPLYV1, 0, 5, ENC, 1, END, 1),
-	TPS6586X_LDO(SM_2, "sm2", sm2, SUPPLYV2, 0, 5, ENC, 7, END, 7),
+	TPS6586X_LDO(SM_2, "vin-sm2", sm2, SUPPLYV2, 0, 5, ENC, 7, END, 7),
 
 	TPS6586X_DVM(LDO_2, "vinldo23", dvm, LDO2BV1, 0, 5, ENA, 3,
 					ENB, 3, VCC2, 6),
 	TPS6586X_DVM(LDO_4, "vinldo4", ldo4, LDO4V1, 0, 5, ENC, 3,
 					END, 3, VCC1, 6),
-	TPS6586X_DVM(SM_0, "sm0", dvm, SM0V1, 0, 5, ENA, 1, ENB, 1, VCC1, 2),
-	TPS6586X_DVM(SM_1, "sm1", dvm, SM1V1, 0, 5, ENA, 0, ENB, 0, VCC1, 0),
+	TPS6586X_DVM(SM_0, "vin-sm0", dvm, SM0V1, 0, 5, ENA, 1,
+					ENB, 1, VCC1, 2),
+	TPS6586X_DVM(SM_1, "vin-sm1", dvm, SM1V1, 0, 5, ENA, 0,
+					ENB, 0, VCC1, 0),
 };
 
 /*
-- 
1.7.1.1

Re: [PATCH] regulator: tps6586x: correct vin pin for sm0/sm1/sm2

[Stephen Warren]

On 07/24/2012 02:18 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
> As per datasheet, the vin pin for the regulator is named
> as vin_sm0, vin_sm1, vin_sm2 for sm0, sm1 and sm2 respectively.
> 
> Correcting the names in driver and documentation to match with
> datasheet.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com>
> Reported-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>

Acked-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>

Re: [PATCH] regulator: tps6586x: correct vin pin for sm0/sm1/sm2

[Mark Brown]

On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 01:48:00PM +0530, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
> As per datasheet, the vin pin for the regulator is named
> as vin_sm0, vin_sm1, vin_sm2 for sm0, sm1 and sm2 respectively.

Applied, thanks.

Re: [PATCH] regulator: tps6586x: correct vin pin for sm0/sm1/sm2

[Stephen Warren]

On 07/24/2012 02:18 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
> As per datasheet, the vin pin for the regulator is named
> as vin_sm0, vin_sm1, vin_sm2 for sm0, sm1 and sm2 respectively.
> 
> Correcting the names in driver and documentation to match with
> datasheet.

Mark,

This patch was in next-20120803, but seems to have been dropped from
next-20120806 and later:

> git log next-20120803 --oneline -- drivers/regulator/tps6586x-regulator.c|cat
> c7bc4e5 regulator: tps6586x: correct vin pin for sm0/sm1/sm2
> 7c7fac3 regulator: tps6586x: add support for input supply
> f464703 regulator: tps6586x: Convert to regulator_list_voltage_table

> git log next-20120806 --oneline -- drivers/regulator/tps6586x-regulator.c|cat
> 4c79c8d regulator: tps6586x: Convert to regulator_[enable|disable|is_enabled|get_voltage_sel]_regmap
> 7c7fac3 regulator: tps6586x: add support for input supply
> f464703 regulator: tps6586x: Convert to regulator_list_voltage_table

I assume that was just an accident?

Re: [PATCH] regulator: tps6586x: correct vin pin for sm0/sm1/sm2

[Mark Brown]

On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 03:57:04PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:

> I assume that was just an accident?

Probably.  I suspect a conflict with mainline when I rebased onto
v3.6-rc1.  Please resend the patch, I don't think I have it any more.

Re: [PATCH] regulator: tps6586x: correct vin pin for sm0/sm1/sm2

[Stephen Warren]

On 08/09/2012 12:05 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 03:57:04PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> 
>> I assume that was just an accident?
> 
> Probably.  I suspect a conflict with mainline when I rebased onto
> v3.6-rc1.  Please resend the patch, I don't think I have it any more.

The patch in question just showed up again in next-20120809:

7f852e0 regulator: tps6586x: correct vin pin for sm0/sm1/sm2

... with the exact same content as the previous commit ID.

Re: [PATCH] regulator: tps6586x: correct vin pin for sm0/sm1/sm2

[Mark Brown]

On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 12:09:31PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:

> The patch in question just showed up again in next-20120809:

> 7f852e0 regulator: tps6586x: correct vin pin for sm0/sm1/sm2

> ... with the exact same content as the previous commit ID.

Oh, in that case I must've missed a branch when I was rebuilding -next.
I just checked for missing branches.  Problem solved.