On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 11:59:11AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 03/22/2013 08:55 AM, Ian Lartey wrote: > > From: Graeme Gregory <gg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > +Optional nodes: > > +- regulators : should contain the constrains and init information for the > > + regulators. It should contain a subnode per regulator from the > > + list. > > + For ti,palmas-pmic - smps12, smps123, smps3 depending on OTP, > > + smps45, smps457, smps7 depending on varient, smps6, smps[8-10], > > + ldo[1-9], ldoln, ldousb > > + For ti,palmas-charger-pmic - smps12, smps123, smps3 depending on OTP, > > + smps[6-9], boost, ldo[1-14], ldoln, ldousb > The list of legal compatible values for this node above doesn't include > both ti,palmas-pmic and ti,palmas-charger-pmic. Should it? This node > should describe this PMIC block in a completely standalone fashion, > without the need to go look at the top-level node to see if it's a > "charger" variant or not. The latter was removed from the code in this series, only palmas-pmic is present now. Just as a general thing there seems to be an awful lot of stuff here about the boilerplate for the generic properties like the interrupt and GPIO controller stuff - we probably need to spin round and look at factoring this out to make life easier. There seems to be a lot of boiler plate in the bindings that is factored out well by the frameworks in the code so people don't even need to think about it.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
