> >> And regulator driver should get the regulator node by their > >> pdev->dev.of_node. > >> Currently, in most of driver, we are having the code on regulator > >> driver to get "regulators" node from parent node which I want to > >> avoid. > > > > Ah, I see. Yes, I believe the regulators should have their own node, > > The use of a "regulators" node to keep all the regulator configuration > in one place seems fine... > > > complete with a compatible string. > > ... but I see not reason why that node has to have a separate compatible > property, or /has/ to have a separate driver. > > I think having a compatible value in this node would only be required if > the HW block that implements those registers is actually expected to be > shared between n different chips, and hence it's likely that you'd get > re-use out of a separate binding, driver, etc. > > It's perfectly reasonable for the regulator MFD driver to know that the > binding for the top-level PMIC node has a regulators child node, and go > find it by name, and read whatever properties/nodes it needs directly > out of it. Writing code that way in no ways implies a need for a > compatible value. Sounds fine. > > To have each regulator listed > > separately in the parent node seems a little messy. Just out of > > interest, how many regulators are we talking about here? -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog -- 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
