From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753288AbbGTKMc (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Jul 2015 06:12:32 -0400 Received: from lists.s-osg.org ([54.187.51.154]:53547 "EHLO lists.s-osg.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751949AbbGTKM3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Jul 2015 06:12:29 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] mfd: max77686: Don't suggest in binding to use a deprecated property To: Lee Jones References: <1437114567-17629-1-git-send-email-javier@osg.samsung.com> <1437114567-17629-2-git-send-email-javier@osg.samsung.com> <20150720081020.GD3061@x1> From: Javier Martinez Canillas X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, Sergei Shtylyov , Mark Brown , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Krzysztof Kozlowski , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Message-ID: <55ACC986.5040408@osg.samsung.com> Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 12:12:22 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20150720081020.GD3061@x1> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 >> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski > > 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. Best regards, -- Javier Martinez Canillas Open Source Group Samsung Research America