> From: Thierry Reding [mailto:thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 1:59 PM > To: Andrew Chew > Cc: Peter Ujfalusi; Alex Courbot; linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 v2] ARM: OMAP: board-4430sdp: Provide regulator > to pwm-backlight > > * PGP Signed by an unknown key > > On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 01:38:31PM -0700, Andrew Chew wrote: > > > > +/* Dummy regulator for pwm-backlight driver */ static struct > > > > +regulator_consumer_supply backlight_supply = > > > > + REGULATOR_SUPPLY("enable", NULL); > > > > > > 'enable' is just too generic, the device name should be also provided: > > > REGULATOR_SUPPLY("enable", "pwm-backlight"); > > > > You're right. I don't like how generic it is as well. But I don't > > think "pwm-backlight" works...at least, not for me when I test it. > > What does work is "backlight.x" where x is some number (for me, it's 1). > > Problem is, I don't know what it would be for you. If only there was > > a way to wildcard that... > > > > Would it be better if we called the regulator something other than > > "enable"? Maybe "backlight-enable", or "bl-enable" for brevity? > > The second parameter needs to match the device name. For the 4430sdp > board this should be "pwm-backlight" since the name will be generated from > the .name and .id fields of the struct platform_device. .id = -1 will result in no > .<id> suffix being attached, so the device should be named "pwm-backlight". > The first parameter needs to match the name of the supply that the driver > requests, so "enable" is correct since the call to regulator_get() uses that. Ah, I see. That makes sense. Thanks, Thierry! "pwm-backlight" it is, then, and I'll make sure to check for this for the other boards. -- 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
