[PATCH v5 1/3] ARM: dts: vf610-twr: Add ADC support

[fugang.duan at freescale.com]

From: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo at linaro.org>
Data: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 1:07 PM + 0800

>To: Duan Fugang-B38611
>Cc: jic23 at kernel.org; sachin.kamat at linaro.org; pmeerw at pmeerw.net;
>lars at metafoo.de; mark.rutland at arm.com; linux-iio at vger.kernel.org; Rob Herring;
>Grant Likely; Pawel Moll; Ian Campbell; Kumar Gala; devicetree at vger.kernel.org;
>linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
>Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] ARM: dts: vf610-twr: Add ADC support
>
>On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 03:48:53PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
>> Copy more DT folks and lists, as I want to make sure everyone agrees
>> on how the fixed regulators should organized in the device tree
>> sources, before I apply the patch.
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 01:39:31PM +0800, Fugang Duan wrote:
>> > vf610 has two ADC controllers, and vf610-twr board ADC0_SE5 pin
>> > connect to sliding rheostat for ADC test, other ADC pins connect to
>> > connectors for future use.
>> >
>> > Add support for ADC0_SE5.
>> >
>> > CC: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo at linaro.org>
>> > CC: Jonathan Cameron <jic23 at kernel.org>
>> > CC: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland at arm.com>
>> > CC: Otavio Salvador <otavio at ossystems.com.br>
>> > CC: Peter Meerwald <pmeerw at pmeerw.net>
>> > CC: Lars-Peter Clausen <lars at metafoo.de>
>> > Signed-off-by: Fugang Duan <B38611 at freescale.com>
>> > ---
>> >  arch/arm/boot/dts/vf610-twr.dts |   21 +++++++++++++++++++++
>> >  arch/arm/boot/dts/vf610.dtsi    |   26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> >  2 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/vf610-twr.dts
>> > b/arch/arm/boot/dts/vf610-twr.dts index c8047ca..d867be3 100644
>> > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/vf610-twr.dts
>> > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/vf610-twr.dts
>> > @@ -34,6 +34,27 @@
>> >  		};
>> >  	};
>> >
>> > +	regulators {
>> > +		compatible = "simple-bus";
>> > +		#address-cells = <1>;
>> > +		#size-cells = <0>;
>> > +
>> > +		reg_vcc_3v3_mcu: regulator at 0 {
>> > +			compatible = "regulator-fixed";
>> > +			reg = <0>;
>> > +			regulator-name = "vcc_3v3_mcu";
>> > +			regulator-min-microvolt = <3300000>;
>> > +			regulator-max-microvolt = <3300000>;
>> > +		};
>> > +	};
>>
>> Per discussion [1], Mark Rutland suggests that instead of organizing
>> the fixed regulator nodes in a simple-bus container, it should be put
>> under root node directly like below.
>>
>> / {
>> 	reg_vcc_3v3_mcu: regulator_0 {
>> 		compatible = "regulator-fixed";
>> 		regulator-name = "vcc_3v3_mcu";
>> 		regulator-min-microvolt = <3300000>;
>> 		regulator-max-microvolt = <3300000>;
>> 	};
>> };
>>
>> Is this what all DT folks agree on?  At least the node name should be
>> 'regulator-0' since it's more idiomatic to use '-' than '_' in node
>> name?
>
>It looks that Mark is giving up [1].  And we're fine with the original code
>then.
>
>Shawn

So, you apply the original patch ? Do I need to resend it again ?

Thanks,
Andy