From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mitch Bradley Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ARM: dt: tegra: cardhu: register core regulator tps65911 Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2012 06:11:21 -1000 Message-ID: <4FCB8CA9.40602@firmworks.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> <20120603120506.GG4258@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4410612512823642337==" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20120603120506.GG4258-yzvPICuk2AATkU/dhu1WVueM+bqZidxxQQ4Iyu8u01E@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: Mark Brown Cc: "linux-lFZ/pmaqli7XmaaqVzeoHQ@public.gmane.org" , devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org, "linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , Rob Herring , Laxman Dewangan , "linux-tegra-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============4410612512823642337== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------090800080201060304060301" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------090800080201060304060301 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 6/3/2012 2:05 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > 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 - Perhaps ironically, the fundamental device tree construct - the "property" - is a key/value pair. > 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. > > > _______________________________________________ > devicetree-discuss mailing list > devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org > https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss --------------090800080201060304060301 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 6/3/2012 2:05 AM, Mark Brown wrote: 
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 -

Perhaps ironically, the fundamental device tree construct - the "property" - is a key/value pair.

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.



_______________________________________________
devicetree-discuss mailing list
devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
--------------090800080201060304060301-- --===============4410612512823642337== 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 --===============4410612512823642337==--