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 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).
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
