Messages in this thread | | | From | Arnd Bergmann <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] Documentation: Describe Device Tree bindings for GPIO Regulator driver | Date | Mon, 15 Oct 2012 14:10:15 +0000 |
| |
On Monday 15 October 2012, Lee Jones wrote: > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/gpio-regulator.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/gpio-regulator.txt > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000..5f77ee0 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/gpio-regulator.txt > @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ > +GPIO controlled regulators > + > +Required properties: > +- compatible : Must be "regulator-gpio". > + > +Optional properties: > +- gpio-enable : GPIO to use to enable/disable the regulator. > +- startup-delay-us : Startup time in microseconds. > +- enable-active-high : Polarity of GPIO is active high (default is low). > + > +Any property defined as part of the core regulator binding defined in > +regulator.txt can also be used. > + > +Example: > + > + mmciv: gpio-regulator { > + compatible = "regulator-gpio"; > + regulator-name = "mmci-gpio-supply"; > + regulator-min-microvolt = <1800000>; > + regulator-max-microvolt = <2600000>; > + gpio = <&gpio0 24 0x4>; > + startup-delay-us = <100000>; > + enable-active-high; > + regulator-boot-on; > + };
The example doesn't match the documentation for the name of the gpio property ("gpio" vs. "gpio-enable"). I think the convention is to use "gpios".
Shouldn't this property be mandatory? I think there is little point in defining a gpio-regulator without a gpio line attached to it.
Finally, the "enable-active-high" looks redundant, as that is something that is normally encoded in the "gpios" property.
Arnd
| |