On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 03:16:12PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote: > On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Mark Brown > >> Describing that in the device tree using regulator-specifiers > >> shouldn't be too bad? The LDO will reference the DCDC as the parent > >> supply (or input or whatever language you prefer). They don't have to > >> be in the same topology, they will instead be under whatever > >> controller/bus they are on for control -- i2c, etc. > > That's not great as it means you've got a separate binding for supplies > > that happen to be connected to another regulator from that used for > > other supplies on the device which is particularly confusing in the > > fairly common case where a regulator chip has multiple supplies. Using > > the same method for binding all supplies seems much neater. > I'm not following the above 100%, but I think you are saying that you > would prefer to describe the regulator / power hierarchy in the > functional topology instead of how the various regulators and supplies > are organized on i2c busses and other controllers? And the obvious > one that would be less than trivial to find a home for would be the > top-level or freestanding fixed regulators that don't sit on a > controlling bus. No, that's not the issue at all. The issue is that we want a single way of describing the supplies a device has regardless of their function (which is what the existing stuff does). Consider the case of a simple regulator with register control. It is going to have a supply used for the regulator itself and almost certainly also a separate digital buffer supply used to reference the digital I/O. It seems bad to specify the first supply in a different manner to the second, and there are more complex examples where a supply can be both a regulator input and also a more general purpose supply. -- 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
