Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 1 Mar 2013 18:15:55 +0530 | From | Laxman Dewangan <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] regulator: palmas: use correct device node for DT parsing |
| |
On Friday 01 March 2013 12:09 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > * PGP Signed by an unknown key > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 02:23:42PM +0000, Graeme Gregory wrote: >> On 27/02/13 14:10, Laxman Dewangan wrote: >>> When device is registered through the DT then regulators node >>> exist in the parent device node of regulator driver. Hence passing >>> parent device node for parsing DT in place of self-device node >>> which is typically NULL. >>> - struct device_node *node = pdev->dev.of_node; >>> + struct device_node *node = pdev->dev.parent->of_node; >> This is not correct, nor is the reasoning. >> I suspect your previous patch broke DT probing so your not getting nodes >> filled in. > So, the reason that this pattern has generally been followed is so that > the regulator core can do the equivalent of regulator_get(dev, supply) > to find the supplies. Using the parent device there is particularly > important in non-DT systems so that we can map the child regulator > supply in by using the dev_name() of the parent rather than the MFD > internal subdevice name but for pure DT systems where it's all just > direct links it's less of an issue. > >
If I make the dts file as #gpio-cells = <2>; gpio-controller;
palmas_pmic { compatible = "ti,palmas-pmic"; ti,ldo6_vibrator = <0>;
regulators { ::::::::::::: } }
then regulator get registered properly. And hence this patch is not require here.
| |