On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 02:18:24PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 09:01:52PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > >> > No, the fixed voltage regultor is a superset of a general regulator - it >> > has additional information like the voltage it supplies and the optional >> > enable GPIO. > >> Still, seems like it could be merged into one regulator binding. > > I don't see how you can usefully do that, the task of plumbing a > regulator into a board is largely orthogonal to the specific feature set > of a given regulator. The specific bindings for a fixed voltage > regulator would be useful or unhelpful for most regultors controlled via > I2C. I meant more that the fixed regulators should reuse as much as possible from the generic regulator bindings, instead of completely forking them. Then, depending on how they are controlled, there will be more specific bindings. So the case of a gpio-controlled fixed regulator would have a binding where the format of the properties to find the gpio, etc, would be described. But things like voltage (without a range, obviously) would be using the same bindings as the other regulators. Does that make more sense? -Olof -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
