From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rajendra Nayak Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] regulator: helper routine to extract regulator_init_data Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 14:26:49 +0530 Message-ID: <4EA52851.8000203@ti.com> References: <4E9EB61C.1040207@ti.com> <20111019144215.GA32007@S2100-06.ap.freescale.net> <4E9FAF42.5060200@ti.com> <20111020061408.GE32007@S2100-06.ap.freescale.net> <4EA00F7C.1080005@ti.com> <20111021082309.GA337@S2100-06.ap.freescale.net> <4EA13053.7080306@ti.com> <20111021115809.GB337@S2100-06.ap.freescale.net> <4EA4FF6B.2080906@ti.com> <20111024081706.GC8708@ponder.secretlab.ca> <20111024090228.GA1755@S2100-06.ap.freescale.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20111024090228.GA1755@S2100-06.ap.freescale.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Shawn Guo Cc: Grant Likely , broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com, patches@linaro.org, tony@atomide.com, devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, lrg@ti.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Monday 24 October 2011 02:32 PM, Shawn Guo wrote: > On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 10:17:06AM +0200, Grant Likely wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 11:32:19AM +0530, Rajendra Nayak wrote: >>> On Friday 21 October 2011 05:28 PM, Shawn Guo wrote: >>>> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 02:11:55PM +0530, Rajendra Nayak wrote: >>>> [...] >>>>>> + /* find device_node and attach it */ >>>>>> + rdev->dev.of_node = of_find_node_by_name(NULL, regulator_desc->name); >>>>> >>>>> so would this do a complete dt search for every regulator? >>>> >>>> Yes, with the first param being NULL, tthe entire device tree will be >>>> searched. >>>> >>>>> we would also need the driver names and dt names to match for this to >>>>> work, right? >>>>> >>>> Driver name does not matter. The key for this search to work is having >>>> regulator's name (regulator_desc->name) match device tree node's name, >>>> case ignored. >>> >>> Mark, whats your take on this? I am somehow not quite sure if we should >>> have this limitation put in to match DT node names with whats in the >>> driver structs (regulator_desc). >> >> This looks wrong to me. Matching based on node /name/, particularly >> when searching the entire tree, will cause problems. >> > Okay, it's wrong then since so many people say it's wrong :) I guess > a quick fix would be adding one property in device tree node for > matching some unique field in regulator_desc, id, maybe? Mark, any > suggestion? Thats basically what the DT compatible property is for :) >