On 3/26/2012 6:00 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
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.
So before filling out the supply_name when calling regulator_register(),
does that mean we should expect regulator drivers that optionally
support supplies to always check with of_get_property()? And which name
should we check? It sounds like the answer is that we should invent
another binding to portray the name of the supply the driver should be
checking against. But then it would seem silly to have two bindings that
pertain to supply names.
Thanks,
Mike
--
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
