From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: rnayak@ti.com (Rajendra Nayak)
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 15:04:45 +0530
Subject: [PATCH 8/9] regulator: helper to extract regulator node based
	on supply name
In-Reply-To: <20110928122628.GF3279@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
References: <1317118372-17052-1-git-send-email-rnayak@ti.com>
	<1317118372-17052-9-git-send-email-rnayak@ti.com>
	<20110927122155.GE4289@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
	<4E81E281.505@ti.com>
	<20110927185913.GU4289@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
	<4E82D63A.7030207@ti.com>
	<20110928122628.GF3279@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Message-ID: <4E858D35.50903@ti.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Wednesday 28 September 2011 05:56 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 10:09:30AM +0200, Cousson, Benoit wrote:
>> On 9/27/2011 8:59 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
>
>>> I'm not sure how this should work in a device tree world, I'd *hope*
>>> we'd get a device tree node for the CPU and could then just make this a
>>> regular consumer thing but then the cpufreq drivers would need to be
>>> updated to make use of it.  The only reason we allow null devices right
>>> now is the fact that cpufreq doesn't have a struct device it can use.
>
>> That's why we do have a MPU node in OMAP dts, in order to build an
>> omap_device that will be mainly used for the DVFS on the MPU.
>
>> And even before DT migration, we used to build statically some
>> omap_device to represent the various processors in the system (MPU,
>> DSP, CortexM3...).
>
> Yeah, but that's very OMAP specific - we don't have that in general (in
> fact it's the only Linux platform I'm aware of that has a device for the
> CPU).

But isn't this the right thing to do for everyone else too?