From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com (Mark Brown)
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 10:27:32 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] ARM: S3C64XX: Hook up VDDINT on Cragganmore
In-Reply-To: <CAH9JG2V8jJGeTDUZjcXa4hs67SaivocO4g-+wB=2+zv2FwsGyQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1323105817-5638-1-git-send-email-broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
 <CAH9JG2V8jJGeTDUZjcXa4hs67SaivocO4g-+wB=2+zv2FwsGyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20111206102732.GE28840@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 08:21:30AM +0900, Kyungmin Park wrote:

> > +	REGULATOR_SUPPLY("vddint", NULL),

> Now there's mixed usage for vddint. until s5pc110 it uses the 'vddint'
> but after exynos it uses the 'vdd_int'. either is okay but need to use
> the same name for consistency?

> How do you think?

I don't really care either way.  I called it vddint because the existing
s3c64xx ARM core supply is called vddarm by software so I was also going
for consistency here :) .  If we want to ensure consistency we should
just pick something and move to it, though I don't know if it's really
worth the effort.