On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 09:42:29AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 08:13:14AM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 08:46:10PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > 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. > > We're talking about consumers here, not the regulator driver finding its > own regulators. No we're not. of_regulator_match() isn't used by consumers but by regulator drivers to parse the DT. Thierry
Attachment:
pgpN5hnRZnnpY.pgp
Description: PGP signature
