On 06/19/2012 11:53 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:43:56AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: >> On 06/19/2012 08:28 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote: > >>> + The regulator is matched with the regulator-compatible. > >> That last sentence should be true for any chip containing >> multiple regulators and using the standard regulator binding. As >> such, shouldn't that property be part of regulator.txt, rather >> than each individual regulator chip's binding document? > > No, there's more than one way to skin this cat. We can either > have something like this where there's a single DT node for all > regulators on the device or we can have an MFD where the regulators > all appear separately. This is certainly what the former case > should be using but it's less clear for the latter. Well, I expected the language to be something along the lines of: Optional properties: ... - regulator-compatible: If a regulator chip contains multiple regulators, and if the chip's binding contains a child node that describes each regulator, then this property indicates which regulator this child node is intended to configure. ... although I guess you'd need something to differentiate the MFD-style vs. plain initdata-style mechanisms So while as you say regulator.txt might not mandate that this be the only method of handling multiple child nodes, shouldn't it document this method as /a/ method in a central location to avoid all the bindings that make use of this feature from duplicating the documentation? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
