[PATCH v2 1/4] mfd: max77686: Don't suggest in binding to use a deprecated property

Javier Martinez Canillas javier at osg.samsung.com
Mon Jul 27 03:40:56 PDT 2015

Hello Mark,

On 07/27/2015 12:33 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 12:28:07PM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>> On 07/20/2015 12:12 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>>> 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 at 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.
>> Any opinions on this?
> I just don't care, this is just syntactic noise which has no practical
> meaning as far as I can tell.

thanks, I'll then leave the regulator's node name as is in the patch
since that is consistent with the rest of the regulator DT bindings.

Best regards,
Javier Martinez Canillas
Open Source Group
Samsung Research America

More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list