Hi, On Sun, May 08, 2011 at 04:08:37PM +0100, Liam Girdwood wrote: > On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 13:45 +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 10:39:51AM +0100, Graeme Gregory wrote: > > > The twl6025 uses a different regulator for USB than the 6030 so select > > > the correct regulator name depending on the subclass of device. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Graeme Gregory <gg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > I don't see the point of this patch. It's just a string. Use the same > > name and add a comment saying that on datasheet/TRM/documentation the > > name LDO is actually referred to as LDOUSB. It's the same functionality > > anyway. > > > > I think for the avoidance of any doubt, it's probably best to use the > TWL6025 string name here as it will importantly match the TWL6025 TRM > and any schematics using the TWL6025. Getting this wrong during TWL6025 > board integration has the potential for hardware damage. I would rather have something that doesn't depend on a correct string and matches based on the device pointer instead. I agree that having the correct string makes it easier to reference schematics/trm and the like, but making the SW depend on the correct spelling of a simple string, is too much for me :-( Specially when getting it wrong "has the potential for hardware damage" :-) -- balbi -- 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
