Hi Benoit, > -----Original Message----- > From: Cousson, Benoit > Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 3:00 PM > To: J, KEERTHY > Cc: Stephen Warren; devicetree-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > ldewangan@xxxxxxxxxx; grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxxxx; swarren@xxxxxxxxxx; > sameo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: dts: add dtsi for palmas > > Hi Keerthy, > > On 06/10/2013 06:03 AM, J, KEERTHY wrote: > > Hi Stephen, > > > > Thanks for the review comments. > > > > ________________________________________ > > From: Stephen Warren [swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2013 1:26 AM > > To: J, KEERTHY > > Cc: Cousson, Benoit; devicetree-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > > linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > > ldewangan@xxxxxxxxxx; grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxxxx; swarren@xxxxxxxxxx; > > sameo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: dts: add dtsi for palmas > > > > On 06/07/2013 05:28 AM, J Keerthy wrote: > >> Adds palmas mfd and palmas regulator nodes. This is based on the > >> patch series: > >> > >> http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg89957.html > >> > >> The device tree nodes are based on: > >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/6/6/25 > > > >> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/palmas.dtsi > >> b/arch/arm/boot/dts/palmas.dtsi > > > >> +&palmas { > > > > Hmmm. That (i.e. requiring the board file to declare the node, then > > setting up all the content by later including this file) is an > > interesting approach. I guess it's reasonable. The one issue is that > > it makes it a little harder for the board file to override any of the > > properties in this file., although it certainly is possible by > > including those overrides after the include. > > > > Irrespective of that, some comments on this: > > > >> + palmas_pmic { > > > >> + ti,ldo6-vibrator; > > > > For example, what if the board doesn't want to have the property set? > > > >> + > >> + regulators { > >> + smps123_reg: smps123 { > >> + regulator-name = "smps123"; > >> + regulator-min-microvolt = < 600000>; > >> + regulator-max-microvolt = <1500000>; > > > > Or what if the board wants to limit the voltage range of this > > regulator due to what it's used for on the board. > > > >> + regulator-always-on; > >> + regulator-boot-on; > > > > And those two properties are almost certainly board-specific policy. > > > > Totally agree to all the above concerns. So can we have a custom > .dtsi > > file for a board+pmic combination? Or have only the required > > properties over ridden in the board file? > > Yes, you can do that potentially if most OMAP5 boards will reuse the > same kind of settings. Kevin has just done that for OMAP3 + twl4030. > > In this case, since we do have only one board, I'm not sure it worth > the effort. I sent a V2 with only the most generic property in palmas.dtsi and the Configurable parameter under the board file. Let me know if that patch set Is fine. > > Regards, > Benoit Regards, Keerthy -- 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
