From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Heiko =?ISO-8859-1?Q?St=FCbner?= Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/4] regulator: Add helper function to get "poweroff-source" property Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 14:33:23 +0200 Message-ID: <2477657.j9qmEgD9t9@phil> References: <1412711104-15902-1-git-send-email-romain.perier@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Grant Likely Cc: PERIER Romain , devicetree , Mark Brown , Liam Girdwood , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "sameo@linux.intel.com" , Lee Jones , robh , Sebastian Reichel , Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov , David Woodhouse , Anton Vorontsov , Laxman Dewangan , "linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Hi Grant, Am Freitag, 10. Oktober 2014, 12:47:08 schrieb Grant Likely: > What I'm more concerned about is the semantics of the property. What > do the generic code paths gain by standardizing this property? Is it > expected that [seems to be missing some text in the original mail] We currently see an influx of system-power-controller variants. While in the past it only was ti,system-power-controller there is now already maxim,system-power-controller rockchip,system-power-controller Romain's work would introduce "active-semi,system-power-controller", I have a "netronix,system-power-controller" sitting in some distant tree and there may be more already waiting somewhere. So in the worst case I'd think you could expect such a property for every pmic-vendor in vendor-prefixes.txt ... as it seems to be a quite common use- case these days to have the pmic handle system power on its own. Heiko