Hi Conor,
On 5/2/24 19:20, Conor Dooley wrote:
On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 02:59:50PM +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
ROHM BD96801 is a highly configurable automotive grade PMIC. Introduce
DT bindings for the BD96801 regulators.
Signed-off-by: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@xxxxxxxxx>
---
RFCv2 => v1
RFC is a status, not a version - ideally this would have been v3 and the
next version v4.
Thanks for the clarification. I've always wondered if an RFC should be
seen as a separate series. Previously I've ended up just dropping the
RFC and pumping up the version. This time the switch from RFC => non RFC
was somewhat radical as a lot of the features were dropped. Furthermore,
I've developed the 'simple' version (this non RFC one) and
'experimental' version (the RFC one) in separate branches - which made
the separation even stronger in my mind - I probably started thinking
these as two different patch series.
But, as I said, thanks for the clarification! I guess it's still better
to make next version v2 (and not v4) to not add even more confusion...
- Drop regulator-name pattern requirement
- do not require regulator-name
Krzysztof had some comments on the buck/ldo node names
I think Krzysztof pointed out that the regulator-name property should
not match the data-sheet but the board. If he had something to say about
the node names, then I've missed his comment!
and on the
initial value properties that I'm not sure if have been addressed, so
gonna leave this series to him.
Thanks for pointing out I may have missed addressing some of his
concerns. I though I fixed all issues he pointed to me but it may be I
missed some - or accidentally dropped some change(s) when merging fixes
from the 'experimental' branch to the 'simple'. I'll revise Krzysztof's
feedback to the RFC before sending the next version!
Thanks!
Yours,
-- Matti
--
Matti Vaittinen
Linux kernel developer at ROHM Semiconductors
Oulu Finland
~~ When things go utterly wrong vim users can always type :help! ~~
