lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jun]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] ARM: dt: tegra: cardhu: register core regulator tps65911
On 06/01/2012 02:40 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 01:23:24PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
>
>> However, Mark warned that changing this would be a bit painful
>> because there are already users of the existing scheme. It looks
>> like that's only tps65910 (which we haven't started using yet),
>> db8500, and ab8500, so probably not that big a deal.
>
> No, there's a bunch of others - some queued for -next, others open
> coding the same scheme. Any device with more than one regulator
> in a node should be using the same scheme.
>
>> We could either augment struct of_regulator_match with an
>> integer ID field for each regulator (which would perhaps make it
>> slightly painful to write the nodes and keep the IDs matched up),
>> or add a new property
>
> No, that's awful. How's anyone supposed to read stuff like that?
> The interrupt bindings are a disaster, not a model.
>
>> to each regulator provider node e.g. regulator-id which
>> contained the name that the regulator driver knows the regulator
>> as (which would match struct of_regulator_match.name), since the
>> existing regulator-name property is used for semantically
>> different purposes.
>
> Oh, ick. This isn't nice. If anything I'd be more inclined to
> put a named property in there and have drivers look for its
> presence. The presence of multiple name properties isn't nice.

Could you expand on "named property" a bit; I'm not quite sure what
you're getting at - literally a property with name "named" (which
would be the same as regulator-id under just a different property
name), or ...?

>>> vdd1_reg: regulator@0 {
>
> Can't we use the right hand side of this? It appears to just be
> syntactic sugar without any current meaning.

The stuff to the right of @ is the "unit address" and must match the
value in the reg property. Using that was the first proposal I had
above (which I also didn't like as much)


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-06-01 23:01    [W:0.826 / U:0.888 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site