On 15 April 2014 14:25, Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On wto, 2014-04-15 at 14:02 +0530, Sachin Kamat wrote: >> On 15 April 2014 13:42, Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On wto, 2014-04-15 at 13:26 +0530, Sachin Kamat wrote: >> >> On 15 April 2014 02:41, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 10:09:09AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> - - s5m8767,pmic-ext-control-gpios: (optional) GPIO specifier for one >> >> >> + - samsung,ext-control-gpios: (optional) GPIO specifier for one >> >> >> GPIO controlling this regulator (enable/disable); This is >> >> >> valid only for buck9. >> >> > >> >> > This is an incompatible change. It's OK to deprecate the old property >> >> > but it's bad form to just remove it. >> >> >> >> I agree with Mark. Also, there is no need to make it generic. >> > >> > I thought it would be good to make it consistent and to reduce the >> > number of bindings with same meaning on similar drivers. >> >> How about making the other one use "s5m8767,pmic-ext-control-gpios" >> compatible instead of introducing a new one? > > But then we would introduce semi-generic binding with a driver-specific > name. We can have a IP specific name (first IP to have this property) common across family of IPs. > > Anyway more drivers seem to use this kind of binding (tps65090, max8952, > da9055, arizona) so maybe there is a point in making this generic? In that case we could but probably not with samsung prefix. -- With warm regards, Sachin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
