Hello Doug,
On 09/10/2014 06:42 AM, Doug Anderson wrote:
>> +
>> + ldo35_reg: LDO35 {
>> + regulator-name = "ldo_35";
>> + regulator-min-microvolt = <1200000>;
>> + regulator-max-microvolt = <1200000>;
>> + inl2-supply = <&buck7_reg>;
>
> Is this a typo? Shouldn't supplies be specified at the top?
>
Yes it is a left over from a previous attempt. The first time I looked at the
DT binding doc to see how parent supplies should be defined, the example said:
xyzreg: regulator@0 {
regulator-min-microvolt = <1000000>;
regulator-max-microvolt = <2500000>;
regulator-always-on;
vin-supply = <&vin>;
};
but that didn't work for me since the parent supplies are not parsed in
of_get_regulation_constraints() [0] but in regulator_register() [1] by calling
regulator_dev_lookup() passing the parent device.
So then I looked at other DTS and found that the supplies where indeed defined
on the top as properties of the "regulators" parent node so that's what I
used. I missed to remove the supply for this regulator, thanks a lot for noticing.
BTW, Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/regulator.txt should be
changed to reflect that the supplies should not be defined in the regulator
node but in the parent node but that is unrelated to this patch of course.
>
> Other than that, you can add my Reviewed-by.
>
Best regards,
Javier
[0]: http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/drivers/regulator/of_regulator.c#L19
[1]: http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/drivers/regulator/core.c#L3506
--
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
