Hello Mark, Thanks for the feedback. On 10/08/2014 04:25 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 03:44:03PM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > >> But currently there isn't a way to do the same with DeviceTrees. Argubly >> the operating modes are Linux-specific so that information should not be >> in the DT which should be used to only describe hardware. But regulators >> having different operating modes is also a hardware property since many >> PMICs have support to set different modes for their regulators. > > That doesn't mean that the definition of those modes is something we can > sensibly provide in generic code, especially in a completely > undocumented fashion (perhaps you've done that later in the patch series > but bisection also applies to reviewability). > Yes, patch #3 updates the regulator DT binding doc and documents what each regulator mode is supposed to be. Basically is just a short description of what is already documented in linux/regulator/consumer.h [0]. If what is enough for you I can reorganize the patch-set so that patch is the first one. As a general question, now that the convention is for DT binding docs to go in a separate patch, should the DT documentation be added before or after that code using these bindings is added? That is something that is not explained in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.txt. Best regards, Javier [0]: http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/include/linux/regulator/consumer.h#L40 -- 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
