> -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Warren [mailto:swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 9:32 PM > 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 v3] ARM: dts: OMAP5: Add palmas MFD node and > regulator nodes > > On 06/10/2013 11:30 PM, J Keerthy wrote: > > This patch adds Palmas MFD node and the regulator nodes for OMAP5. > > > > The node definitions are based on: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/6/6/25 > > > > Boot tested on omap5-uevm board. > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5-uevm.dts > > b/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5-uevm.dts > > > + palmas: palmas@48 { > > + reg = <0x48>; > > + interrupts = <GIC_SPI 7 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>; /* IRQ_SYS_1N > */ > > + interrupt-parent = <&gic>; > > + }; > > +}; > > + > > +&palmas { > > + compatible = "ti,palmas"; > > + interrupt-controller; > > + #interrupt-cells = <2>; > > I don't really see the point of splitting the node into two parts if > it's all going into a single file. It made sense if part of the node > came from a common .dtsi file, but not so much when it doesn't. The intent was to reduce indentation and to declare its sub-nodes outside of i2c1. I will club it and resend. 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
