From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: grant.likely@secretlab.ca (Grant Likely)
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 11:07:34 +0200
Subject: [PATCH v2 3/5] regulator: helper routine to extract
	regulator_init_data
In-Reply-To: <20111020172218.GE31337@atomide.com>
References: <20111019053354.GB31162@S2100-06.ap.freescale.net>
	<20111019144734.GI18713@sirena.org.uk>
	<20111019150448.GB32007@S2100-06.ap.freescale.net>
	<20111019151031.GA4275@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
	<4E9F9892.9070007@ti.com> <20111020094140.GK18713@sirena.org.uk>
	<20111020162743.GB31337@atomide.com>
	<20111020164006.GA10155@sirena.org.uk>
	<20111020170534.GC31337@atomide.com>
	<20111020172218.GE31337@atomide.com>
Message-ID: <20111024090734.GD8708@ponder.secretlab.ca>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 10:22:19AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> [111020 09:31]:
> > 
> > That's where a DT entry specific configuration string might be the best
> > option as it still allows describing the hardware using DT standards,
> > while also allowing board specific configuration too.
> 
> Hmm, actually, can't we just pass the board specific configuration in
> the board specific .dts file and then it gets merged in with the
> arch independent DT node?

It would be fine to, say, have a omap-specific board configuration
node for collecting things that really don't fit anywhere else.  That
would be in some ways analogous to the way we've decided to use top a
top level node for describing a machines audio complex.

g.