On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:47:33AM -0600, Andrew F. Davis wrote: > On 11/10/2015 03:57 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > >Of course this is a negative review of the binding! What on earth did > >you think my feedback meant? The driver and the binding go together. > The bindings should be driver/platform/OS agnostic, changing the bindings > because the Linux regulator subsystem maintainer doesn't like them > in regulator drivers is then not correct. > If the binding is accepted then the regulator driver will just have > to deal with it, so as I said, why not nack the bindings patch, and > explain your objection where DT maintainers might see it. If I'm not going to merge the driver because of issues in the DT code it is vanishingly unlikely that I'm going to merge the regulator bindings either. I would have thought it should be clear that my review comments cover both the manifestation of the bindings in the driver and the bindings themselves.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
