Hi Mark,
I require your input on supporting the vin-supply for tps6586x.
On Tuesday 26 June 2012 04:39 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 06/25/2012 04:26 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
More specifically, all the supplies for a device (including those
that happen to be inputs for regulators) should be specified in
exactly the same fashion. This makes the binding more regular and
means that users can just go through the schematic adding the
mappings without worrying about what what the supply happens to
be.
Just making sure I parsed that right. I think what you're saying is
that the device itself should represent its input pins, e.g.:
tps6586x {
vin-ldo01-supply =<&some_regulator>;
vin-ldo23-supply =<...>;
vin-ldo4-supply =<...>;
vin-ldo678-supply =<...>;
vin-ldo9-supply =<...>;
:::::::::::
};
Looked tps6586x-regulator driver and it has the platform data which is
regulator_init_data.
So for adding the vin-supply similar to what we have in fixed or
tps6591x regulator to pass through the desc.supply_name, we are not
having option here in platform data which can work for DT and non-DT case.
So if still want to have the DT and non-DT case similar, we can add one
tps6586x_regulator_platform_data as
struct tps6586x_regulator_platform_data
{
const char *input_supply;
struct regulator_init_data *reg_init_data;
}
and then pass this when registering the regulator.
Or,
second option is to support the input supply name for DT case through
desc.supply_name and for non-DT let it be there through regulator_init_data.
Please let me know your opinion.
Thanks,
Laxman
--
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
