On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Ah, we're misunderstanding each other again (as just discussed on irc as well), and we're in agreement here as far as I can tell. Named properties using regulator-specifiers to reference upstream supplies should work well enough for any use today, and if it needs to be reconsidered in the future we can revisit it then. -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
