On Wednesday 27 March 2013 09:27 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
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.
Yes, we need to agree on DT. I sent the patch based on the patches came
from TI/Slimlogic and other discussion about DT patches.
Recently, you commented on DT for palmas, it need to be completely IP
based or hw based. Mix will not work.
If it is IP based then almost all palmas-* file need to be rewrite, no
one is written as IP based. All are using palma structures, palma
header, palma macro etc
which should not be there.
Given that, I'm not sure why the Slimlogic people aren't CC'd on this
patch:-(
I have not added then on my original patch as
./script/get_maintainers.pl did not give me name.
However, you added immediately them (TI and slimlogic) on this patch
itself. I have not got any feedback from them yet.
I
--
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
