On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 10:33:49AM -0500, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
> So, in my opinion, the tps65217-regulator.c driver is really good
> example of how it could be done.
Yes, this should be a good example to refer to.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On 10/01/2015 10:33 AM, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
Hi Andrew,
On 09/30/2015 03:29 PM, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
On 09/30/2015 12:28 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 01:58:41PM -0500, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
On 09/29/2015 01:38 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
Oh, ick. The binding has a
Hi Andrew,
On 09/30/2015 03:29 PM, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
> On 09/30/2015 12:28 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 01:58:41PM -0500, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
>>> On 09/29/2015 01:38 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
>>
Oh, ick. The binding has a compatible string in the individual
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 06:32:14PM -0500, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
> On 09/30/2015 05:20 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> >>This is already the case then, missing regulator nodes in old drivers will
> >>not
> >>get instantiated ether. And old drivers don't always store any more info
> >>about
>
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 06:32:14PM -0500, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
> On 09/30/2015 05:20 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> >>This is already the case then, missing regulator nodes in old drivers will
> >>not
> >>get instantiated ether. And old drivers don't always store any more info
> >>about
>
On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 10:33:49AM -0500, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
> So, in my opinion, the tps65217-regulator.c driver is really good
> example of how it could be done.
Yes, this should be a good example to refer to.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Hi Andrew,
On 09/30/2015 03:29 PM, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
> On 09/30/2015 12:28 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 01:58:41PM -0500, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
>>> On 09/29/2015 01:38 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
>>
Oh, ick. The binding has a compatible string in the individual
On 10/01/2015 10:33 AM, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
Hi Andrew,
On 09/30/2015 03:29 PM, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
On 09/30/2015 12:28 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 01:58:41PM -0500, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
On 09/29/2015 01:38 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
Oh, ick. The binding has a
On 09/30/2015 05:20 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 03:29:30PM -0500, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
On 09/30/2015 12:28 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
No, you don't need to use regulator-compatible - that's deprecated.
Just use the node names.
Are we sure matching on node names is a good
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 03:29:30PM -0500, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
> On 09/30/2015 12:28 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> >No, you don't need to use regulator-compatible - that's deprecated.
> >Just use the node names.
> Are we sure matching on node names is a good idea? Most are just arbitrary
> names
On 09/30/2015 12:28 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 01:58:41PM -0500, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
On 09/29/2015 01:38 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
Oh, ick. The binding has a compatible string in the individual
regulator bindings which is broken unless there really are lots of
variants
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 01:58:41PM -0500, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
> On 09/29/2015 01:38 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> >Oh, ick. The binding has a compatible string in the individual
> >regulator bindings which is broken unless there really are lots of
> >variants being configured via DT (which is just
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 01:58:41PM -0500, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
> On 09/29/2015 01:38 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> >Oh, ick. The binding has a compatible string in the individual
> >regulator bindings which is broken unless there really are lots of
> >variants being configured via DT (which is just
On 09/30/2015 12:28 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 01:58:41PM -0500, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
On 09/29/2015 01:38 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
Oh, ick. The binding has a compatible string in the individual
regulator bindings which is broken unless there really are lots of
variants
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 03:29:30PM -0500, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
> On 09/30/2015 12:28 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> >No, you don't need to use regulator-compatible - that's deprecated.
> >Just use the node names.
> Are we sure matching on node names is a good idea? Most are just arbitrary
> names
On 09/30/2015 05:20 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 03:29:30PM -0500, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
On 09/30/2015 12:28 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
No, you don't need to use regulator-compatible - that's deprecated.
Just use the node names.
Are we sure matching on node names is a good
On 09/29/2015 01:38 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 01:08:50PM -0500, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
On 09/29/2015 10:13 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
sure that will save me anything as my probe function is called with a DT
match already, so no searching is needed.
You've not understood
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 01:08:50PM -0500, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
> On 09/29/2015 10:13 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> >>sure that will save me anything as my probe function is called with a DT
> >>match already, so no searching is needed.
> >You've not understood what that change is replacing, the code
On 09/29/2015 10:13 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 03:10:04PM -0500, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
On 09/25/2015 01:05 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 09:52:53AM -0500, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
+ match = of_match_device(tps65912_regulator_of_match_table, >dev);
+
On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 03:10:04PM -0500, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
> On 09/25/2015 01:05 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> >On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 09:52:53AM -0500, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
> >>+ match = of_match_device(tps65912_regulator_of_match_table, >dev);
> >>+ if (!match)
> >>+ return
On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 03:10:04PM -0500, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
> On 09/25/2015 01:05 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> >On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 09:52:53AM -0500, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
> >>+ match = of_match_device(tps65912_regulator_of_match_table, >dev);
> >>+ if (!match)
> >>+ return
On 09/29/2015 10:13 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 03:10:04PM -0500, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
On 09/25/2015 01:05 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 09:52:53AM -0500, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
+ match = of_match_device(tps65912_regulator_of_match_table, >dev);
+
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 01:08:50PM -0500, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
> On 09/29/2015 10:13 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> >>sure that will save me anything as my probe function is called with a DT
> >>match already, so no searching is needed.
> >You've not understood what that change is replacing, the code
On 09/29/2015 01:38 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 01:08:50PM -0500, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
On 09/29/2015 10:13 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
sure that will save me anything as my probe function is called with a DT
match already, so no searching is needed.
You've not understood
On 09/25/2015 01:05 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 09:52:53AM -0500, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
+static int tps65912_regulator_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
+{
+ struct tps65912 *tps = dev_get_drvdata(pdev->dev.parent);
+ struct regulator_init_data *init_data;
+
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 09:52:53AM -0500, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
> +static int tps65912_regulator_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> + struct tps65912 *tps = dev_get_drvdata(pdev->dev.parent);
> + struct regulator_init_data *init_data;
> + const struct tps_info *template;
> +
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 09:52:53AM -0500, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
> +static int tps65912_regulator_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> + struct tps65912 *tps = dev_get_drvdata(pdev->dev.parent);
> + struct regulator_init_data *init_data;
> + const struct tps_info *template;
> +
On 09/25/2015 01:05 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 09:52:53AM -0500, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
+static int tps65912_regulator_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
+{
+ struct tps65912 *tps = dev_get_drvdata(pdev->dev.parent);
+ struct regulator_init_data *init_data;
+
28 matches
Mail list logo
