Hello Mark, On 07/27/2015 12:33 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 12:28:07PM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: >> On 07/20/2015 12:12 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > >>> This PMIC uses a single I2C address for all the regulators and these are >>> controlled by writing to different I2C register addresses. So the regulator >>> nodes don't have a reg property in this case. > >>> By looking at other regulators bindings, besides the generic regulator.txt >>> and fixed-regulator.txt DT bindings, there are only 5 (out of 40) that use >>> the node-name@unit-address convention mentioned in the ePAPR document. > >>> AFAICT all these are for regulators that are actually in different addresses >>> but I could be wrong so let's see what Mark says. > >> Any opinions on this? > > I just don't care, this is just syntactic noise which has no practical > meaning as far as I can tell. > thanks, I'll then leave the regulator's node name as is in the patch since that is consistent with the rest of the regulator DT bindings. Best regards, -- Javier Martinez Canillas Open Source Group Samsung Research America -- 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
 |