From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Brown Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ARM: dt: tegra: cardhu: register core regulator tps65911 Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 13:05:06 +0100 Message-ID: <20120603120506.GG4258@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> References: <4FBBCA8F.3050903@wwwdotorg.org> <4FBBD33C.8020802@nvidia.com> <4FBBDA97.6000006@wwwdotorg.org> <4FBBDE06.5080806@nvidia.com> <4FC916AC.4060804@wwwdotorg.org> <20120601204052.GB4258@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <4FC92990.5030104@wwwdotorg.org> <20120601210451.GC4258@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <4FCACFB6.2060601@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1873499063800212758==" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4FCACFB6.2060601-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org Sender: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org To: Rob Herring Cc: "linux-lFZ/pmaqli7XmaaqVzeoHQ@public.gmane.org" , devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org, "linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , Rob Herring , "linux-tegra-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , Laxman Dewangan List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org --===============1873499063800212758== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="e5GLnnZ8mDMEwH4V" Content-Disposition: inline --e5GLnnZ8mDMEwH4V Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 09:45:10PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > I tend to agree with Steven's and Olof's comments in this thread. As the > node names generally don't have much meaning, I don't think we should > start now. We've already got multiple styles of bindings and I don't > think we need more. Well, if we're going to go with an existing idiom the normal thing would be an ordered array which is absolutely abysmal from a usability standpoint. Compatible properties don't work as the whole reason we have an issue here is that people want to have a single node representing a group of regulators - for regulators which we can add a compatible property to we're already doing that and have no issue. What device tree seems to need rather badly is a way of representing key/value pairs - aside from the legacy bindings that seems to be the major source of pain when trying to contort things into DT. Using the "regulator" string that we have to put in the binding (which is currently totally meaningless) does seem like a good way forward here. --e5GLnnZ8mDMEwH4V Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJPy1LrAAoJEBus8iNuMP3d8RQP/1NAUydX26zNJ22zFa5HGSqk KEhRiGVXVP7go5gm750s8wwT1D4KRlu+hOt1YuL82elZVAx/j6R7JmfCLFV3hYGX u2dolI8x/IE/zrZ4vF/bR3s2MlCkhfB9XvNkCcH8kmwCI5CNJMrPk9rh8wBWN2lB pw6V1gOY5hRFuLlPAjLriC9WeSp/TXkifrhrcTOvhl3SvczTCBSWe/zUiUitnt72 FtyUVa3Mf2tt172lyNv/y+11BUyHtlKc2NFoslYYspPCzfYsseo15yaSP00ZA46a vlVKEb/t6RX/0EGfq8P1XJfaE2ehuUDO1UUyseXNuTD/4Ssny6ZpRGAzbTHI/ahJ CkTwfSfMDIV+enyfjlZFu7d1psVsQLUPKSxxLIHMu4Y03ECfK2O2hKuWw1JGXv0A oooFaCNRmuJxx0sPQieAG4bvvpPIxC39MdPoaA5jxhsS2+a23VGPnoE5FNQHpgwF YJkj9eXu0rlFXIQLChpIhw+DrfEaixC6BSzxyvhfpj8LYqDrSkJDurJsJT2fGh1Z ao2fmEvVY1nH3/kT70mVL+axi/sfr3th7WV42Y4D+l1Qk2ab36bP8mZwNW1pqLgU wwgqnbDvx3o0vdUL72tYD9jWZ+Oc3gK8XgtwwkIVVpGA97D5o5gwB0VSGMofO30X e1QjMgeqUI9PEPpjIx2W =t9T4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --e5GLnnZ8mDMEwH4V-- --===============1873499063800212758== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss --===============1873499063800212758==--