On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 09:08:46AM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> On 13-10-15 04:22, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> >On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 1:10 AM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 01:04:17AM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> >>>+- num-supplies : The number of regulators used by the framebuffer.
> >>>+- vinN-supply : The N-th (from 0) regulator used by the framebuffer.
> >>I don't see why you need num-supplies. Why not just try probing
> >>vin${N}-supply until such a property isn't present in the DT?
> +1 for this.
Even better would be to just enumerate all the properties on the node
and request anything with a FOO-supply name. That way we can keep
using standard regulator bindings that name the supplies after their
actual names on the device.
> > That's doable. Though I'd add a hard limit on it. Does 16 seem
> > reasonable?
> I would not add a hard limit to the binding, you can use a fixed array in
> the code to make the code simpler. I would say 8 should be sufficient, since
> the limit will only be in the code we can always bump it when we need
> to.
Or just dynamically allocate the array and resize as needed if it starts
to get to be a problem.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
