On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 07:24:09PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > 1. What is it that the new property can express that cannot already > be expressed by using the phandle. As well as being able to refer to the object from within the device tree we also need to be able to tell what the object represents - we have a bunch of regulators in an array under a node for a PMIC and we want to know which regulator on the physical device each array entry corresponds to. Previously this was being done by parsing the phandle name but that means we can't have more than one device with the same set of names. > 2. Why is it called "regulator-compatible"? If it's similar to the > "compatible" property, don't you have to have a binding for each > possible string? If it's not related to the "compatible" property, > why is it named in a similar way? Yes, there are bindings defined already for all the relevant devices. Elsewhere in the binding document you'll see a list of all the regulators on the PMIC and the names by which the device tree binding knows them.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
