On Friday 30 September 2011 04:18 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:28:49AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 09:57:30AM +0530, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
+ init_data->supply_regulator = (char *)of_get_property(dev->of_node,
+ "regulator-supplies", NULL);
Mark, I still seem to be a little confused with this one as to why
we would need a phandle *and* a supply-name to reference a parent
regulator/supply.
The phandle would point to a regulator dt node and that node internally
would have just one name associated with it.
To repeat: the supply name is for the consumer. It is needed so that
the consumer can tell which supply is provided by which regulator.
Almost all devices have more than one supply and if the device does
anything more complicated than just turning on all the supplies when the
device is active it's going to need to figure out which supply is which.
Hang on, I now have no idea what this is supposed to be doing. Later on
in the series you had examples in your commit logs with perfectly
sensible bindings for supplies:
vmmc-supply =<®ulator1>;
vpll-supply =<®ulator1>;
which have both a unique name and a direct reference to the supplying
regulator. What are these "regulator-supplies" properties supposed to
be?
:-), yes, I was confused for a while as well after reading your response.
The "regulator-supplies" is used to specific the regulator *parent*.
Same as what was earlier passed by using the
"supply_regulator" field of regulator_init_data structure.
Grant wanted the bindings to support specifying multiple parents
and hence I was thinking of either a list of names *or*
a list of phandles to specify multiple parents to a regulator.
--
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
