On 03/27/2013 07:00 AM, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> #ifdef CONFIG_OF_GPIO >> - palmas_gpio->gpio_chip.of_node = palmas->dev->of_node; >> + palmas_gpio->gpio_chip.of_node = pdev->dev.of_node; >> #endif > > OK I think that #ifdef is necessary... Laxman, Don't we need to resolve and agree on the final DT bindings before we can start making changes like this? It's not clear yet whether everyone is on the same page re: how the MFD sub-devices are modelled in DT - whether each sub-component really is a standalone device, or whether the MFD itself instantiates all its children based on internal static tables rather than DT. Presumably, the answer to that question directly determines whether the code change above is correct; the correct of_node might be either the main Palmas node (if DT doesn't represent the MFD components) or it might be the regulator sub-node (if DT is used to represent MFD components). Given that, I'm not sure why the Slimlogic people aren't CC'd on this patch:-( -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
