On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 01:23:24PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> However, Mark warned that changing this would be a bit painful because
> there are already users of the existing scheme. It looks like that's
> only tps65910 (which we haven't started using yet), db8500, and ab8500,
> so probably not that big a deal.
No, there's a bunch of others - some queued for -next, others open
coding the same scheme. Any device with more than one regulator in a
node should be using the same scheme.
> We could either augment struct of_regulator_match with an integer ID
> field for each regulator (which would perhaps make it slightly painful
> to write the nodes and keep the IDs matched up), or add a new property
No, that's awful. How's anyone supposed to read stuff like that? The
interrupt bindings are a disaster, not a model.
> to each regulator provider node e.g. regulator-id which contained the
> name that the regulator driver knows the regulator as (which would match
> struct of_regulator_match.name), since the existing regulator-name
> property is used for semantically different purposes.
Oh, ick. This isn't nice. If anything I'd be more inclined to put a
named property in there and have drivers look for its presence. The
presence of multiple name properties isn't nice.
> > vdd1_reg: regulator@0 {
Can't we use the right hand side of this? It appears to just be
syntactic sugar without any current meaning.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
