Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] dt-bindings: add devicetree bindings for st-pwm regulator

[Doug Anderson]

Chris,

On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 1:02 AM, Chris Zhong <zyw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Document the st-pwm regulator
>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Zhong <zyw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> ---
>
> Changes in v3:
> Adviced by Doug Anderson
> - update the Example
>
> Changes in v2:
> Adviced by Lee Jones
> - rename the documentation
> Adviced by Doug Anderson
> - update the example
> Adviced by Mark Rutland
> - remove pwm-reg-period
>
>  .../bindings/regulator/pwm-regulator.txt           |   29 ++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 29 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/pwm-regulator.txt
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/pwm-regulator.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/pwm-regulator.txt
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..eb46f7b
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/pwm-regulator.txt
> @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
> +pwm regulator bindings
> +
> +Required properties:
> +- compatible: Should be "pwm-regulator"
> +- pwms: OF device-tree PWM specification (see PWM binding pwm.txt)
> +- voltage-table: voltage and duty table, include 2 merbers in each set of
> +  brackets, first one is voltage(unit: uv), the next is duty(unit: percent)
> +
> +Any property defined as part of the core regulator binding defined in
> +regulator.txt can also be used.
> +
> +Example:
> +       pwm_regulator {
> +               compatible = "pwm-regulator;
> +               pwms = <&pwm1 0 8448 0>;
> +
> +               voltage-table = <1114000 0>,
> +                               <1095000 10>,
> +                               <1076000 20>,
> +                               <1056000 30>,
> +                               <1036000 40>,
> +                               <1016000 50>;
> +
> +               regulator-always-on;
> +               regulator-boot-on;

I think Mark suggested that the two properties above were not useful
on a regulator that is always enabled.  That seems to match the code:

/* If we don't know then assume that the regulator is always on */
if (!rdev->desc->ops->is_enabled)
  return 1;

...so I'd remove them from your example...

Again, if there's no additional feedback you'd need Mark's advice
about whether he wants a respin.

Reviewed-by: Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/