From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com (Mark Brown)
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 11:35:50 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 8/9] regulator: helper to extract regulator node based on
	supply name
In-Reply-To: <4E858D35.50903@ti.com>
References: <1317118372-17052-1-git-send-email-rnayak@ti.com>
	<1317118372-17052-9-git-send-email-rnayak@ti.com>
	<20110927122155.GE4289@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
	<4E81E281.505@ti.com>
	<20110927185913.GU4289@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
	<4E82D63A.7030207@ti.com>
	<20110928122628.GF3279@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
	<4E858D35.50903@ti.com>
Message-ID: <20110930103516.GB4195@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 03:04:45PM +0530, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
> On Wednesday 28 September 2011 05:56 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> >On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 10:09:30AM +0200, Cousson, Benoit wrote:

> >>And even before DT migration, we used to build statically some
> >>omap_device to represent the various processors in the system (MPU,
> >>DSP, CortexM3...).

> >Yeah, but that's very OMAP specific - we don't have that in general (in
> >fact it's the only Linux platform I'm aware of that has a device for the
> >CPU).

> But isn't this the right thing to do for everyone else too?

That doesn't really matter so long as nobody else is actually doing it;
you can't make a decision like this in an OMAP-specific fashion, you
need to make sure everyone else is on board with the decision and make
sure we've got at least at a high level way of representing the CPUs and
SoCs in the device tree that people can buy into.