From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: rnayak@ti.com (Rajendra Nayak)
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 12:49:41 +0530
Subject: [RFC PATCH 09/11] DT: regulator: Helper to extract regulator
	node based on supply name
In-Reply-To: <20110915230324.GD3218@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
References: <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>
	<1316085727-15023-6-git-send-email-rnayak@ti.com>
	<1316085727-15023-7-git-send-email-rnayak@ti.com>
	<1316085727-15023-8-git-send-email-rnayak@ti.com>
	<1316085727-15023-9-git-send-email-rnayak@ti.com>
	<1316085727-15023-10-git-send-email-rnayak@ti.com>
	<20110915135416.GN7988@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
	<20110915225035.GP3523@ponder.secretlab.ca>
	<20110915230324.GD3218@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Message-ID: <4E72F88D.6070000@ti.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Friday 16 September 2011 04:33 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 04:50:35PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
>
>> We've got two competing approaches here.  For reg and interrupts, the
>> proposal on the table that we talked about at LPC is to do reg-names
>> and interrupts-names so as to preserve the existing semantics of the
>> reg and interrupts properties.  For gpios we're using the binding
>> "<name>-gpios" for named gpio references.  There isn't the same
>> pressure to preserve existing bindings in that case.  I'm okay with
>> either approach, providing that "-regulator" is encoded into the name.
>
> I think I prefer the latter but I'm probably not too fussed.
>
> I'd rather use something like -supply for these just on the basis that
> you don't always connect things to regulators (for example, speaker
> supplies are generally attached direct to the battery).

Ok, I'll go with <name>-supply then.