On 06/20/2012 01:46 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > 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 s/phandle name/node name/ in that line I think. At least, I don't think it's common to refer to nodes as phandles; phandles are usually the values used at "client" sites to refer to nodes IIUC. > 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. -- 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
