From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: lee.jones@linaro.org (Lee Jones)
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:31:31 +0100
Subject: [PATCH RESEND 1/4] ARM: OMAP2+: AM33XX: Add tps65910 device tree
 data
In-Reply-To: <20120828172133.GH4534@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
References: <1342766789-28148-1-git-send-email-anilkumar@ti.com>
 <1342766789-28148-2-git-send-email-anilkumar@ti.com>
 <20120720095935.GQ4495@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
 <331ABD5ECB02734CA317220B2BBEABC13E9FA91E@DBDE01.ent.ti.com>
 <20120720113806.GW4495@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
 <331ABD5ECB02734CA317220B2BBEABC13EA01F1E@DBDE01.ent.ti.com>
 <20120723133400.GU4435@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
 <20120828112603.GC25786@gmail.com>
 <20120828172133.GH4534@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Message-ID: <20120829083129.GB3439@gmail.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 10:21:33AM -0700, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 12:26:07PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> 
> > > > arch/arm/boot/dts/db8500.dtsi
> 
> > > I'm not actually seeing anything terribly problematic here, though the
> > > regulator-name properties should really be removed as they're fairly
> > > useless and seem to be missing the point of having the property.
> 
> > Just looking at this now. 
> 
> > The regulator-name property is used to populate constrains->name. Are
> > you sure you still want them all removed?
> 
> Yes, of course.  There's no way that a generic .dtsi used for any
> possible board could come up with a sensible value.

So how should constrains->name be populated then? Would you prefer
regulator-names moved to the .dts file(s), or something else?

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog