From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: rnayak@ti.com (Rajendra Nayak)
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 12:47:05 +0530
Subject: [RFC PATCH 04/11] omap4: SDP: Pass regulator_init_data from DT
In-Reply-To: <20110915134618.GK7988@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
References: <1316085727-15023-1-git-send-email-rnayak@ti.com>
	<1316085727-15023-2-git-send-email-rnayak@ti.com>
	<1316085727-15023-3-git-send-email-rnayak@ti.com>
	<1316085727-15023-4-git-send-email-rnayak@ti.com>
	<1316085727-15023-5-git-send-email-rnayak@ti.com>
	<20110915134618.GK7988@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Message-ID: <4E72F7F1.9060703@ti.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Thursday 15 September 2011 07:16 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 04:52:00PM +0530, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
>
>> +Required properties:
>> +- compatible: Must be "regulator","ti,twl-reg";
>
> I'd expect listings for the specific chips too.

I just did'nt do that because we have just one driver for
all twl chips (twl4030/twl6030/twl6025) and there seems to be
no real need to identify specific chips while we could
do knowing just the chip family.

>
>> +	xyz-regulator: regulator at 0 {
>> +		compatible = "regulator","ti,twl-reg";
>> +		ti,reg-id =<37>; /* TWL6030_REG_VAUX1_6030 */
>
> These magic numbers are *very* Linux specific, we should have a better
> way of specifying regulators - I'd off the top of my head expect that
> the compatible property would identify the regulator.

The driver seems to use a per-regulator table, and it uses the above
id to indexed into it. I could probably do it with the compatible
property, but that would mean I have a compatible for *each* regulator
instance, like "ti,twl-reg-vaux1", "ti,twl-reg-vmmc" etc.
Does that sound reasonable?