Hi Mark, On Thursday 05 December 2013 01:47:04 Laurent Pinchart wrote: > On Thursday 05 December 2013 00:09:28 Mark Brown wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 04:44:52PM +0100, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > The gpio-regulator driver requires the regulator-type property to be > > > present. Document it as required in the DT bindings. > > > > It does? That seems needless. It should just default to voltage and > > provide a way override to current, though frankly I'd be astonished to see > > a GPIO controlled current regulator at all so I'm not sure I'd even > > bother writing the code for that until someone needs it. As it is this > > will most likely just be noise in the DT files and wasted cycles parsing > > the property. > > I'm fine with that. The property should still be documented in the DT > bindings as optional though. Or be removed completely until a > GPIO-controlled current regulator is needed. What's the status of this ? The gpio regulator driver now defaults to voltage regulator when the regulator-type property is not set. Should the DT bindings document the property as optional (I can submit a patch for that), or do you consider that the gpio regulator driver should support voltage regulators only when used with DT, and just keep the regulator-type property support in the driver for backward compatibility ? > > Please CC maintainers... > > My bad, sorry. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart -- 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
