Hello!
On Jun 6, 2011, at 1:13 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 11:45:29AM -0400, Oleg Drokin wrote:
>>>> -static struct regulator_consumer_supply sdp4430_vaux_supply[] = {
>>>> - {
>>>> - .supply = "vmmc",
>>>> - .dev_name = "omap_hsmmc.1",
>>>> - },
>>>> -};
>>>> +static struct regulator_consumer_supply sdp4430_vaux_supply =
>>>> + REGULATOR_SUPPLY("vmmc", "omap_hsmmc.1");
>>> this should be an array, as it was before.
>>
>> Only one is defined right now.
>> Whoever needs a second element can convert it to array, I think?
>> What;s the importance of having it as an array right now?
> because later patches will be easier to review. Look below:
...
> can you see now ?
Ok, I get the idea. Do you think it would be best to convert every supply
definition to an array then just in case?
I wonder what are the chances of additional regulators to appear at all
in many of these.
What about supplies that are not going to have additional elements
(like that cm-t35 board, because there simply are no more regulators in the twl)?
Bye,
Oleg--
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
