On 06/08/2012 09:06 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Sat, Jun 09, 2012 at 12:52:03AM +0530, Laxman Dewangan wrote: > >> So is it fine to go on the above binding? >> In this case we need to find the match_regulator based on >> regulator-id rather than by name. > > I guess. I'm not enthusiastic about it (some way of using the key/value > nature of DT as a hash would be much nicer) but it seems that the > combination of DT and the existing code for it can't really give us > more. > > If we're going to do this we need to update all the existing DT bindings > for drivers that use single node regulators like this. Please also > change the name used for the property to regulator-compatible to make it > clear that the idea is the same as normal compatible properties. I'm not sure of the logic behind naming the property "regulator-compatible"; the standard compatible property identifies that the node is of a particular type/class, whereas the regulator-id in the example Laxman quoted would indicate the specific identity/object. Those seem like different things. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
