From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ian Campbell <ijc+uboot@hellion.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 15:24:04 +0100
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 3/7] sunxi: power: Unify axp pmic function names
In-Reply-To: <5617C4A8.8060800@redhat.com>
References: <1443882383-21181-1-git-send-email-hdegoede@redhat.com>
 <1443882383-21181-3-git-send-email-hdegoede@redhat.com>
 <CAGb2v65-ROaJ1kjg84wi-8_0cE7UN82M3KyMYTVA-7vu6r_Sag@mail.gmail.com>
 <56103783.2090105@redhat.com> <1444379501.1410.280.camel@hellion.org.uk>
 <5617A3EB.5070001@redhat.com> <1444394488.1410.371.camel@hellion.org.uk>
 <5617C4A8.8060800@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <1444400644.1410.400.camel@hellion.org.uk>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

On Fri, 2015-10-09 at 15:44 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:

> > In which case what we would want is a set of choice options for primary and
> > a separate set choice options for secondary (with a none option too in this
> > case) and there would be no duplication of any specific AXPxxx option
> > between both the primary and secondary sets.
> 
> Ah Yes, from what we now know / expect about how things will work on
> boards with 2 pmics that is correct. I'll respin the first patch to change
> things into a choice including a none option.

Do we need a "none" option for the primary case?