Graeme/Laxman, > -----Original Message----- > From: linux-omap-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-omap- > owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Laxman Dewangan > Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 3:32 PM > To: Graeme Gregory > Cc: J, KEERTHY; linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > broonie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; sameo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH] mfd: Palmas: Introduce features to select the > appropriate modules present in the palmas variant > > On Friday 14 June 2013 03:25 PM, Graeme Gregory wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 02:51:58PM +0530, J Keerthy wrote: > >> - children[PALMAS_PMIC_ID].platform_data = pdata->pmic_pdata; > >> - children[PALMAS_PMIC_ID].pdata_size = sizeof(*pdata->pmic_pdata); > >> + if (PALMAS_PMIC_HAS(palmas, REGULATORS)) { > >> + children[PALMAS_PMIC_ID].platform_data = pdata->pmic_pdata; > >> + children[PALMAS_PMIC_ID].pdata_size = > >> + sizeof(*pdata->pmic_pdata); > >> + } > >> > > I think a lot of complexity here could actually be removed by > removing > > the old board file style probing for palmas. I do not beleive either > > major user of palmas requires that anymore? I always had in my mind > > that this bit was temporary. > > Completely agree, we should not have this. Also this is not valid much > in DT context and so we can remove it. So shall I completely knock off the pdata assignments? BTW having features flag would still be handy for PMICs which might Not have all the features as TWL6035/Palmas. So I still want to retain That. Is it Okay? > > -- > 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 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
