On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 08:46:10PM +0100, 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 > means we can't have more than one device with the same set of names. I thought the reason was that matching the node names up with the regulator names was considered bad practice. As Stephen already noticed, the matching is done by node name, not phandle. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you can have more than one device with the children have the same names. Thierry
Attachment:
pgp6mek2uRp0o.pgp
Description: PGP signature
