> >> And regulator driver should get the regulator node by their
> >> pdev->dev.of_node.
> >> Currently, in most of driver, we are having the code on regulator
> >> driver to get "regulators" node from parent node which I want to
> >> avoid.
> >
> > Ah, I see. Yes, I believe the regulators should
On 09/19/2013 02:29 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/mfd-core.txt
> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/mfd-core.txt
> +MFD DT binding document
> +---
> +
> +Multi Function Devices (MFDs) have multiple sub module whose driver
On 09/19/2013 06:22 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
> Do the sub-nodes have their own properties? If so, it would be worth
> breaking them up as other OSes could reuse the specifics. If they do,
> then you need so put them in the binding. If they don't, then you do
> not require sub-nodes. The
On Thursday 19 September 2013 05:52 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
Do the sub-nodes have their own properties? If so, it would be worth
breaking them up as other OSes could reuse the specifics. If they do,
then you need so put them in the binding. If they don't, then you do
not require sub-nodes. The MFD c
> >>>Do the sub-nodes have their own properties? If so, it would be worth
> >>>breaking them up as other OSes could reuse the specifics. If they do,
> >>>then you need so put them in the binding. If they don't, then you do
> >>>not require sub-nodes. The MFD core will ensure the sub-devices are
> >
On Thursday 19 September 2013 05:30 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2013, Mark Brown wrote:
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 09:30:50AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
I'm not entirely sure this is what Mark was saying. I think he was
complaining about the existence of the sub-nodes rather than how the
MF
On Thu, 19 Sep 2013, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 09:30:50AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
>
> > I'm not entirely sure this is what Mark was saying. I think he was
> > complaining about the existence of the sub-nodes rather than how the
> > MFD Core assigns their of_node. My take is that
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 09:30:50AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> I'm not entirely sure this is what Mark was saying. I think he was
> complaining about the existence of the sub-nodes rather than how the
> MFD Core assigns their of_node. My take is that the chip is really a
> single device which provid
On Thursday 19 September 2013 02:00 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2013, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
Multi Function Devices (MFDs) have multiple sub module whose driver is
developed in different sub-system like GPIO, regulators, RTC, clock etc.
The device tree of such device contains multiple s
On Thu, 19 Sep 2013, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
> Multi Function Devices (MFDs) have multiple sub module whose driver is
> developed in different sub-system like GPIO, regulators, RTC, clock etc.
> The device tree of such device contains multiple sub-node which contains
> the properties of these sub-m
10 matches
Mail list logo
