mbox series

[v3,0/4] regulator: mp886x: two features and dt json convert

Message ID 20200820171020.5df4683b@xhacker.debian
Headers show
Series regulator: mp886x: two features and dt json convert | expand

Message

Jisheng Zhang Aug. 20, 2020, 9:10 a.m. UTC 
This is to improve the mp886x regulator driver support.
patch1 implments .set_ramp_delay
patch2 and patch3 support the switch freq setting
patch4 converts dt binding to json-schema

Since v2:
 - Use mps,switch-frequency-hz instead of mps,switch-frequency
 - Add "maxItems: 2" to "mps,fb-voltage-divider" in dt-binding
 - Add a $ref to regulator.yaml in dt-binding

Since v1:
 - put any schema conversions at the end of the series as Mark
   suggested.

Jisheng Zhang (4):
  regulator: mp886x: implement set_ramp_delay
  dt-bindings: regulator: mp886x: support mps,switch-frequency-hz
  regulator: mp886x: support setting switch freq
  dt-bindings: regulator: Convert mp886x to json-schema

 .../devicetree/bindings/regulator/mp886x.txt  |  27 -----
 .../bindings/regulator/mps,mp886x.yaml        |  61 ++++++++++
 drivers/regulator/mp886x.c                    | 109 +++++++++++++++++-
 3 files changed, 167 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
 delete mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/mp886x.txt
 create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/mps,mp886x.yaml

Comments

Mark Brown Aug. 20, 2020, 9:05 p.m. UTC | #1 
On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 05:10:51PM +0800, Jisheng Zhang wrote:
> Implement the .set_ramp_delay for MP8867 and MP8869. MP8867 and MP8869
> could share the implementation, the only difference is the slew_rates
> array.

This doesn't apply against current code, please check and resend.
Jisheng Zhang Aug. 21, 2020, 2:17 a.m. UTC | #2 
On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 22:05:13 +0100 Mark Brown wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 05:10:51PM +0800, Jisheng Zhang wrote:
> > Implement the .set_ramp_delay for MP8867 and MP8869. MP8867 and MP8869
> > could share the implementation, the only difference is the slew_rates
> > array.  
> 
> This doesn't apply against current code, please check and resend.

I found the reason, the three patches in v2 were applied to for-next tree.
Should I renew patches based on for-next? Since the "mps,switch-frequency"
binding isn't released and used, I think I can send new patches to convert
mps,switch-frequency to mps,switch-frequency-hz.

Thanks
Mark Brown Aug. 21, 2020, 9:57 a.m. UTC | #3 
On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 10:17:29AM +0800, Jisheng Zhang wrote:

> I found the reason, the three patches in v2 were applied to for-next tree.
> Should I renew patches based on for-next? Since the "mps,switch-frequency"
> binding isn't released and used, I think I can send new patches to convert
> mps,switch-frequency to mps,switch-frequency-hz.

Yes, please - for-next is best for anything that isn't a bug fix.