From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753745AbbDUNQY (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 21 Apr 2015 09:16:24 -0400
Received: from hqemgate15.nvidia.com ([216.228.121.64]:7237 "EHLO
	hqemgate15.nvidia.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750714AbbDUNQV (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 21 Apr 2015 09:16:21 -0400
X-PGP-Universal: processed;
	by hqnvupgp08.nvidia.com on Tue, 21 Apr 2015 06:15:21 -0700
Message-ID: <55364D6C.4090702@nvidia.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 18:45:24 +0530
From: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
CC: <robh+dt@kernel.org>, <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        <ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk>, <galak@codeaurora.org>,
        <lgirdwood@gmail.com>, <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] regulator: max8973: make default/unset dvs gpio as
 invalid gpio
References: <1429534457-15515-1-git-send-email-ldewangan@nvidia.com> <1429534457-15515-3-git-send-email-ldewangan@nvidia.com> <20150420211514.GO14892@sirena.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20150420211514.GO14892@sirena.org.uk>
X-Originating-IP: [10.19.65.30]
X-ClientProxiedBy: DRUKMAIL102.nvidia.com (10.25.59.20) To
 DRBGMAIL102.nvidia.com (10.18.16.21)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


On Tuesday 21 April 2015 02:45 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> * PGP Signed by an unknown key
>
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 06:24:16PM +0530, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>> If platform data has dvs-gpio value 0 as default/unset then
>> make this as invalid gpio so that function gpio_is_valid()
>> can return false on this case.
> OK, so this handles the problem with the first patch - it should have
> been the first patch to help with review.
>
Yaah, I realized after reading your comment on patch 1 that I should 
have on different sequence.

Thanks for accepting the patches.