[lkml]   [2012]   [Jun]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] ARM: dt: tegra: cardhu: register core regulator tps65911
    On 06/02/2012 04:19 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:
    > [+devicetree-discuss and grant/rob]
    > On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Mark Brown
    > <> wrote:
    >> On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 02:44:00PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
    >>> 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 ...?
    >> Just a property where we only care about a name (ie, that the property
    >> is present).
    >>>> 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)
    >> The stuff to the left of the @ is just noise right now, though - it has
    >> no meaning currently. It's filled in with "regulator" because we need
    >> to put something there AFAICT.
    > Right. In general (and historically) in the device tree, names of the
    > nodes should have meaning for the person reading the device tree, but
    > it's not meant to be used for software to figure out the hardware
    > configuration -- that should instead be handled through compatible +
    > other properties.
    > Names are generally kept fairly generic (ethernet, cpus, memory, pci, etc).
    > Where it starts to become gray area is when it comes down to specific
    > bindings, and essentially the device nodes underneath of those
    > devices. It's been generally accepted that we can put meaning to the
    > names there if needed, but it's still better to avoid it.
    > I was originally OK with the regulator binding where names have
    > meaning, but after having looked at it a bit recently when looking at
    > bindings for some new boards we have, I realized that the original
    > suggestion for regulator bindings doesn't necessarily isolate the
    > naming dependencies to only be under the regulators in question. In
    > particular, for things such as fixed regulators, they can be located
    > at other places in the device tree.
    > Maybe the solution to that case is to just aggregate them in one place
    > and make a pseudo-binding for that (or those, in case of multiple
    > locations).
    > On the rest of the name-has-meaning discussion, I think it would be
    > cleaner to move away from it now while there's relatively few users of
    > it (with a migratin path), rather than revise it later. But I'll leave
    > it to Grant and Rob to decide which way the prefer things to be. I
    > think they might both be travelling around LC/LinuxCon events at the
    > moment though.

    I tend to agree with Steven's and Olof's comments in this thread. As the
    node names generally don't have much meaning, I don't think we should
    start now. We've already got multiple styles of bindings and I don't
    think we need more.


    > -Olof
    > _______________________________________________
    > devicetree-discuss mailing list

     \ /
      Last update: 2012-06-03 05:21    [W:0.044 / U:2.988 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site