On 5/20/2013 3:15 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 05/20/2013 09:35 AM, Rhyland Klein wrote: >> On 5/20/2013 11:28 AM, Stephen Warren wrote: >>> On 05/20/2013 09:24 AM, Rhyland Klein wrote: >>>> On 5/17/2013 7:57 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: >>>>> On 04/10/2013 01:51 PM, Rhyland Klein wrote: >>>>>> The charger is now represented by a distinct subnode of the tps65090 >>>>>> device. Add this node and enable low current charging with it. >>>>> >>>>> What's the status of the TPS60590 bindings; are they agreed upon by >>>>> NVIDIA, TI, and SlimLogic yet? In other words, is this patch still >>>>> something I should apply for 3.11, or does it need to be reworked? >>>> >>>> I haven't seen any discussion with slimlogic or TI about the tps65090. >>>> As far as I know the bindings for this driver haven't changed. >>>> >>>> Laxman, do you think the work on the palmas driver will impact the >>>> design of the bindings for the tps65090? >>> >>> Sorry, perhaps I'm confusing two different chips. If TPS65090 isn't >>> Palmas, then ignore my question. In which case, I suppose I should just >>> apply your patch then? >>> >> >> I would say yes. The design of having the child node this way was how we >> had agreed worked best. The only reason I would see a significant reason >> to change this, is if something was decided that all mfd devices should >> start to follow some pattern which differed, which would mean changing >> existing bindings and therefore is unlikely. > > OK, I have applied this patch to Tegra's for-3.11/dt branch. I also sent > a patch to actually enable the new driver in tegra_defconfig. > thanks, that was the next patch I was going to send :) Beat me to it. -rhyland -- nvpublic -- 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
