On 01/11/16 19:58, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote: > On 11/01/2016 05:03 AM, Matt Ranostay wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 10:04 AM, Eva Rachel Retuya <eraretuya@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> The name passed to devm_regulator_get() should match the name of the >>> supply as specified in the device datasheet. This makes it clear what >>> power supply is being referred to in case of presence of other >>> regulators. >>> >>> Currently, the supply name specified on the affected devices is 'vcc'. >>> Use lowercase version of the datasheet name to specify the supply >>> voltage. >>> >> >> Aren't we possibly breaking current device tree definitions that >> people may have? We should still check the old name after the new >> datasheet name in my opinion. > > None of those drivers have DT bindings, so I think we are OK. And they are > in staging anyway. > I agree on this. These are technically in kernel interfaces so we are fine to change them. Would have been more interesting if there were DT bindings however and we would have had to support the old and new naming for a while at least (i.e. probably forever as we'd never get around to cleaning it up!) Jonathan _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
