On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 09:14:48PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 01:29:05PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 06:54:24PM +0530, Rajendra Nayak wrote: > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ > > > +Voltage/Current Regulators > > > There should be a mandatory compatible field here, right? I.e. a topmost > > generic one, "regulator" or similar. > > It's not really useful for the regulator subsystem to directly bind to > the device as something needs to actually control it, the idea is that > this binding is included by reference in the bindings for specific > devices. Right, same goes for many other devices. Some use a toplevel compatible field, some do not. Either way, not a big deal if you don't want to include one. > > Also, lower-caps is common instead of V and A. > > On the other hand the case is pretty important for SI units Yeah, true. The fixed regulators used microvolt instead, which could be a good way to do it. > > > +- <name>-supply: phandle to the parent supply/regulator node > > > Having a fixed name here instead of a free form string would probably be a good > > idea? > > The name will be fixed by the individual device bindings, this is > specifying the general form of a supply property. Each device binding > will define the set of supplies that the device can use. Ah, ok. It shouldn't be a part of this binding then and instead be added to the bindings for the consumers. -Olof -- 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
