From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com (Mark Brown) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 19:42:40 +0800 Subject: [PATCH 08/22] regulator: Change ab8500 match names to reflect Device Tree In-Reply-To: <4FD5D679.1070000@linaro.org> References: <20120530151119.GN9947@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <4FC63B39.6040905@linaro.org> <20120530164152.GP9947@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <4FC846CC.20801@linaro.org> <20120601084850.GJ24139@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <4FCDDFFC.3000902@linaro.org> <20120605103846.GQ23408@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <4FD5C829.2090408@linaro.org> <20120611103606.GG11439@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <4FD5D679.1070000@linaro.org> Message-ID: <20120611114239.GL11439@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 12:28:57PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > On 11/06/12 11:36, Mark Brown wrote: > >Suppose you have two devices of the same type with an array of name > >based regulators, meaning the nodes with constraints have to have a > >particular name in order to be matched to the regulator. How would a > >consumer reference a node to specify a supply? > some-regulators { > compatible = "protect_me_from_similarly_named_regulators"; > > regulator_node_name_reg: regulator_node_name { > > }; > }; > [supply_name]-supply = <®ulator_node_name>; I'm not 100% sure you read what I wrote above or in all the previous mails about having two devices of the same type? The case where we have only one regulator of a given type obviously works otherwise people would have noticed, the problem starts when you have two of the same regulator device down. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: