> -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Brown [mailto:broonie@xxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 6:37 PM > To: Inki Dae > Cc: 'Olof Johansson'; 'Sean Paul'; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > samsung-soc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-doc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'DRI mailing list'; linux-arm- > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] drm/bridge: Add PTN3460 bridge driver > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 01:18:05PM +0900, Inki Dae wrote: > > > > > I still think the pin could be replaced with a regulator. But > > > > lvds-bridge node has "powerdown-gpio" property - it say this board > > > > will use gpio pin - specific to board. So it seems no problem. > > > > No, don't model things that aren't regulators as regulators - it's > > > just confusing from a usability standpoint and causes breakage when > > > the pins don't behave like regulators. > > > It seems that there was your missing point. That _is not_ what I > mentioned. > > I mean that other boards can use a regulator instead of gpio pin. > > What I'm saying is no boards should use a regulator to control that GPIO > pin, obviously if they're controlling the actual regulators that's fine That is what I mentioned. Some boards _could control_ the actual regulator for lvds-bridge, and that would be depended on how HW engineer designs the board. > but the reset signal should not be controlled via the regulator API (there > are some unfortunate cases where people have done that already but let's > not have any more). _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
