On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 06:17:59PM -0700, Michael Bohan wrote: > I'm curious if there was a reason we didn't standardize on a binding > name for regulator supplies when using Device Tree. This appears to > cause duplicated code for regulator drivers that support devices > that may or may not have supplies specified. Supplies are *always* specified using the name from the part data sheet, anything to do with regulator-regulator supplies is a Linux implementation detail. > Also, I'm curious why we need two pointers for the supply name. > There's currently regulator_desc->supply_name, recently added for > Device Tree, and then the old init_data->supply_regulator. Is there > a need for both? We can't just break the build for systems using supply_regulator.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
