On Mon, 2011-05-09 at 15:16 +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 12:43:49PM +0100, Liam Girdwood wrote: > > On Mon, 2011-05-09 at 12:03 +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > > 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" > > > :-) > > > > > > > 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 ? > Yes, I think this should be the long term aim, but atm we will have to stick with current implementation until regulator has device tree support. 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
