On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 03:10:04PM +0100, Tomasz Figa wrote: > On Friday 06 of December 2013 12:32:14 Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > +- regulators : > > + Required properties: > > + - compatible : "maxim,max14577-regulator" > > + May contain a sub-node per regulator from the list below. Each > Is "May" the correct word? Wouldn't it be better to always have > configuration specified for all regulators of the cell? It doesn't achieve anything to force people to include unused regulators in the DT - the node is only needed if the kernel needs to do something with the regulator. This means that all the individual regulators end up being optional. The set of > Now this patch creates a question whether we should keep the existing > black-box MFD scheme, where the list of cells is determined by an array > hardcoded inside the driver or rather we should completely move to DT > based description where of_mfd_populate() could create all MFD cells > using description from DT. This has been discussed before. The biggest issue is that the Linux idea of what cells it wants depends very much on whatever the current set of subsystems Linux has and the way we divide the hardware between them. That's not a static thing, we're seeing flux with things like extcon and clk at the minute for example.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
