Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755447AbcK2FWt (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Nov 2016 00:22:49 -0500 Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.29.96]:54878 "EHLO smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751726AbcK2FWh (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Nov 2016 00:22:37 -0500 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.1 smtp.codeaurora.org 3AD8D613D3 Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; dmarc=none header.from=codeaurora.org Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=vivek.gautam@codeaurora.org MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20161128224953.GL6095@codeaurora.org> References: <1479816163-5260-1-git-send-email-vivek.gautam@codeaurora.org> <1479816163-5260-2-git-send-email-vivek.gautam@codeaurora.org> <20161128224953.GL6095@codeaurora.org> From: Vivek Gautam Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 10:52:35 +0530 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] dt-bindings: phy: Add support for QUSB2 phy To: Stephen Boyd Cc: kishon , "robh+dt" , Mark Rutland , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Srinivas Kandagatla , linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1024 Lines: 31 Hi Stephen, On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 4:19 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote: Thanks for reviewing the patch-series. > On 11/22, Vivek Gautam wrote: >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/qcom-qusb2-phy.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/qcom-qusb2-phy.txt >> new file mode 100644 >> index 0000000..38c8b30 >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/qcom-qusb2-phy.txt >> @@ -0,0 +1,55 @@ >> +Optional properties: >> + - nvmem-cells: a list of phandles to nvmem cells that contain fused >> + tuning parameters for qusb2 phy, one for each entry >> + in nvmem-cell-names. >> + - nvmem-cell-names: must be "tune2_hstx_trim_efuse" for cell containing > > Do we really need efuse in the name? Seems redundant given this > is already an nvmem. Correct, we don't need 'efuse' in the name. Thanks for pointing out. Best Regards Vivek -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project