On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 02:47:05PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote: > On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Mark Brown > > I don't see how you can usefully do that, the task of plumbing a > > regulator into a board is largely orthogonal to the specific feature set > > of a given regulator. The specific bindings for a fixed voltage > > regulator would be useful or unhelpful for most regultors controlled via > > I2C. > I meant more that the fixed regulators should reuse as much as > possible from the generic regulator bindings, instead of completely > forking them. That appears to be what's going on? The fixed voltage regulator includes by reference the core regulator binding, all of the properties it defines with the possible exception of the supply name are not covered in the core binding. > Then, depending on how they are controlled, there will be more > specific bindings. So the case of a gpio-controlled fixed regulator > would have a binding where the format of the properties to find the > gpio, etc, would be described. But things like voltage (without a > range, obviously) would be using the same bindings as the other > regulators. The only overlap I'm seeing is the voltage? The intended semantic for the voltage is rather different. The core binding for the voltage specifies the range of voltages it is possible to set a regulator to on a given board and is used to give permission to the system to reconfigure the regulator. The binding here tells the system what voltage a fixed voltage regulator is running at. We could have the fixed voltage regulator read the same binding - though there's some risk of mild confusion it shouldn't be too bad. -- 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
