From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754071Ab3IJReU (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Sep 2013 13:34:20 -0400 Received: from avon.wwwdotorg.org ([70.85.31.133]:56263 "EHLO avon.wwwdotorg.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753146Ab3IJReR (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Sep 2013 13:34:17 -0400 Message-ID: <522F5815.4070109@wwwdotorg.org> Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 11:34:13 -0600 From: Stephen Warren User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130803 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Brown CC: Laxman Dewangan , rob.herring@calxeda.com, mark.rutland@arm.com, rob@landley.net, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lgirdwood@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] regulator: core: add support for configuring turn-on time through constraints References: <1378811888-2268-1-git-send-email-ldewangan@nvidia.com> <1378811888-2268-2-git-send-email-ldewangan@nvidia.com> <522F3691.3090805@wwwdotorg.org> <20130910165153.GQ29403@sirena.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20130910165153.GQ29403@sirena.org.uk> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 09/10/2013 10:51 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 09:11:13AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: > >>> +- regulator-enable-time: Turn ON time for regulator(in uS) > >> Bike-shedding slightly: This isn't really the time it takes to >> enable a regulator, but the time the voltage takes to become >> stable, or settle. Perhaps name the property >> regulator-settle-time/regulator-settle-delay? > > The normal term would be ramp delay. It's not usually the time > taken to completely settle, it's usually quoted as the time taken > to reach within some proportion of the target voltage. I notice there's a regulator-ramp-delay property, already documented right above this new property. Is this a conflicting usage of the same term, or should that existing property just be used in this case too?