On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 09:45:10PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > I tend to agree with Steven's and Olof's comments in this thread. As the > node names generally don't have much meaning, I don't think we should > start now. We've already got multiple styles of bindings and I don't > think we need more. Well, if we're going to go with an existing idiom the normal thing would be an ordered array which is absolutely abysmal from a usability standpoint. Compatible properties don't work as the whole reason we have an issue here is that people want to have a single node representing a group of regulators - for regulators which we can add a compatible property to we're already doing that and have no issue. What device tree seems to need rather badly is a way of representing key/value pairs - aside from the legacy bindings that seems to be the major source of pain when trying to contort things into DT. Using the "regulator" string that we have to put in the binding (which is currently totally meaningless) does seem like a good way forward here.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
