From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rajendra Nayak Subject: Re: Supporting non-device tree consumers with device tree regulator drivers Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 10:38:42 +0530 Message-ID: <4FCEE5DA.7090403@ti.com> References: <4FCE30D6.7060102@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from na3sys009aog105.obsmtp.com ([74.125.149.75]:40116 "EHLO na3sys009aog105.obsmtp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750935Ab2FFFIu (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Jun 2012 01:08:50 -0400 Received: by obbtb18 with SMTP id tb18so9775713obb.19 for ; Tue, 05 Jun 2012 22:08:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4FCE30D6.7060102@codeaurora.org> Sender: linux-arm-msm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org To: David Collins Cc: Mark Brown , Liam Girdwood , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org On Tuesday 05 June 2012 09:46 PM, David Collins wrote: > In the long term, this problem should go away of its own accord. However, > in the short term, many systems are converting over to using device tree. > Therefore, we are left with a situation currently where some regulator > consumer drivers are being probed via device tree and some are being > probed via board file devices within a single platform. Is this a situation you are facing in your mainline kernel or internal trees? What you explain would need you to work with hybrid board files with some devices created through device tree and some others statically from the board file in the kernel, and that approach was already shot down as unacceptable.