From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932432Ab3FVNH2 (ORCPT ); Sat, 22 Jun 2013 09:07:28 -0400 Received: from hqemgate03.nvidia.com ([216.228.121.140]:5889 "EHLO hqemgate03.nvidia.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752674Ab3FVNH0 (ORCPT ); Sat, 22 Jun 2013 09:07:26 -0400 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by hqnvupgp07.nvidia.com on Sat, 22 Jun 2013 06:05:20 -0700 Message-ID: <51C5A2BC.5060401@nvidia.com> Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2013 18:42:28 +0530 From: Laxman Dewangan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121028 Thunderbird/16.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kishon Vijay Abraham I CC: "broonie@kernel.org" , "grant.likely@linaro.org" , "rob.herring@calxeda.com" , "rob@landley.net" , "lgirdwood@gmail.com" , Stephen Warren , "gg@slimlogic.co.uk" , "sameo@linux.intel.com" , "devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org" , "linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] regulator: palmas: model SMPS10 as two regulators References: <1371717458-10307-1-git-send-email-kishon@ti.com> <1371717458-10307-3-git-send-email-kishon@ti.com> <51C2DEEB.9090600@nvidia.com> <51C3089F.5030003@ti.com> <51C30B95.4010406@nvidia.com> <51C30F60.3060100@ti.com> <51C31537.9030705@nvidia.com> <51C31F30.5000307@ti.com> <51C45448.4080201@nvidia.com> <51C45C7A.5000509@ti.com> In-Reply-To: <51C45C7A.5000509@ti.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Friday 21 June 2013 07:30 PM, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: > On Friday 21 June 2013 06:55 PM, Laxman Dewangan wrote: >> On Thursday 20 June 2013 08:56 PM, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Thursday 20 June 2013 08:14 PM, Laxman Dewangan wrote: >>>> Have you added the regulator supply entries? >>>> Are you testing on mainline linux-next? >>> Not in linux-next :-( Tested only with mainline. >>> Does inverting the order helps? >>> >> I think because you do not have entry of supply in your dt node, it gets >> ignored by regulator_dev_lookup() and continue. >> >> I made the entry like (added entry form smps10-out2-supply and smps10-in-supply >> in dt node) and then it failed. >> /*** >> >> + smps10-out2-supply = <&palmas_smps10_out2_reg>; >> + smps10-in-supply = <&tps65090_dcdc3_reg>; >> ldo3-in-supply = <&palmas_smps3_reg>; >> @@ -903,6 +905,20 @@ >> regulator-always-on; >> }; >> >> + palmas_smps10_out1_reg: smps10_out1 { >> + regulator-name = "smps10_out1"; >> + regulator-min-microvolt = <5000000>; >> + regulator-max-microvolt = <5000000>; >> + regulator-always-on; >> + }; >> + >> + palmas_smps10_out2_reg: smps10_out2 { >> + regulator-name = "smps10_out2"; >> + regulator-min-microvolt = <5000000>; >> + regulator-max-microvolt = <5000000>; >> + regulator-always-on; >> + }; >> + >> **/ >> >> >> After reversing the sequence, it worked fine. > You mean, changing the order in dt node helped? The sequence on DT does not matter. We register the regulators in the sequence it is having enums value for regulator-id in loop. So we need to revert there. Yaah, it looks odd that SMPS10-OUT2come before SMPS10-OUT1 in enums definition.