From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rajendra Nayak Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 04/11] omap4: SDP: Pass regulator_init_data from DT Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 14:56:24 +0530 Message-ID: <4E731640.2080304@ti.com> References: <1316085727-15023-1-git-send-email-rnayak@ti.com> <1316085727-15023-2-git-send-email-rnayak@ti.com> <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> <20110915134618.GK7988@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <4E72F7F1.9060703@ti.com> <20110916090026.GD22062@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20110916090026.GD22062@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Mark Brown Cc: grant.likely@secretlab.ca, devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, tony@atomide.com, lrg@ti.com, b-cousson@ti.com List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Friday 16 September 2011 02:30 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:47:05PM +0530, Rajendra Nayak wrote: >> On Thursday 15 September 2011 07:16 PM, Mark Brown wrote: >>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 04:52:00PM +0530, Rajendra Nayak wrote: > >>>> +Required properties: >>>> +- compatible: Must be "regulator","ti,twl-reg"; > >>> I'd expect listings for the specific chips too. > >> I just did'nt do that because we have just one driver for >> all twl chips (twl4030/twl6030/twl6025) and there seems to be >> no real need to identify specific chips while we could >> do knowing just the chip family. > > The driver can bind to as many names as it likes. makes sense, I'll add one per chip variant. > >>>> + xyz-regulator: regulator@0 { >>>> + compatible = "regulator","ti,twl-reg"; >>>> + ti,reg-id =<37>; /* TWL6030_REG_VAUX1_6030 */ > >>> These magic numbers are *very* Linux specific, we should have a better >>> way of specifying regulators - I'd off the top of my head expect that >>> the compatible property would identify the regulator. > >> The driver seems to use a per-regulator table, and it uses the above >> id to indexed into it. I could probably do it with the compatible > > I know what the driver is doing, the problem is that it's very much > specific to Linux (and Linux may change the numbers at some point). > >> property, but that would mean I have a compatible for *each* regulator >> instance, like "ti,twl-reg-vaux1", "ti,twl-reg-vmmc" etc. >> Does that sound reasonable? > > Yes.