On wto, 2014-04-15 at 14:02 +0530, Sachin Kamat wrote: > On 15 April 2014 13:42, Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On wto, 2014-04-15 at 13:26 +0530, Sachin Kamat wrote: > >> On 15 April 2014 02:41, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 10:09:09AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >> > > >> >> - - s5m8767,pmic-ext-control-gpios: (optional) GPIO specifier for one > >> >> + - samsung,ext-control-gpios: (optional) GPIO specifier for one > >> >> GPIO controlling this regulator (enable/disable); This is > >> >> valid only for buck9. > >> > > >> > This is an incompatible change. It's OK to deprecate the old property > >> > but it's bad form to just remove it. > >> > >> I agree with Mark. Also, there is no need to make it generic. > > > > I thought it would be good to make it consistent and to reduce the > > number of bindings with same meaning on similar drivers. > > How about making the other one use "s5m8767,pmic-ext-control-gpios" > compatible instead of introducing a new one? But then we would introduce semi-generic binding with a driver-specific name. Anyway more drivers seem to use this kind of binding (tps65090, max8952, da9055, arizona) so maybe there is a point in making this generic? Best regards, Krzysztof -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |