On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 13:40 +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 10:39:48AM +0100, Graeme Gregory wrote: > > + /* TWL6025 LDO regulators */ > > + struct regulator_init_data *ldo1; > > + struct regulator_init_data *ldo2; > > + struct regulator_init_data *ldo3; > > + struct regulator_init_data *ldo4; > > + struct regulator_init_data *ldo5; > > + struct regulator_init_data *ldo6; > > + struct regulator_init_data *ldo7; > > + struct regulator_init_data *ldoln; > > + struct regulator_init_data *ldousb; > > + /* TWL6025 DCDC regulators */ > > + struct regulator_init_data *smps3; > > + struct regulator_init_data *smps4; > > + struct regulator_init_data *vio6025; > > this is just becoming really really ugly. You need a more clever way of > handling this. Maybe passing an array of regulators and the array size > instead of continuously adding fields to this structure. > Ok, I agree that optimising the platform data here is desirable, but I think we will have to stick with this atm as the twl driver has some rather annoying limitations that make optimising things like this a pita atm. I guess we should look at fixing the twl driver within TI in order to make it more adaptable (i.e. support future twl ICs) and also a non singleton device. Liam -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
