On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 03:16:03PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: > On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 12:43:49PM +0100, Liam Girdwood wrote: > > I think it's the lesser evil though, especially for device integrators. > > They will just match the regulator name from the schematics together > > with the TRM name when creating their regulator constraints and having > > different names here will definitely cause confusion. > Any chance Device Tree could be used to pass that data to kernel > instead, together with regulator names and all needed data for each one > of them ? I'm pretty sure that as soon as we have viable device tree support for relevant platforms in mainline we'll have regulator support, though I'm not sure that this will help too much with the naming as you'll still have to figure out what the consumer requests. We shouldn't be passing in the consumer supply names from device tree (at least not a board specific one) as this breaks the model that the supply names correspond to the chip pins. -- 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
