From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 2/3] regulator: dt: regulator match by regulator-compatible
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 11:31:36 -0600
Message-ID: <4FE35A78.60003@wwwdotorg.org>
References: <1340194987-23654-1-git-send-email-ldewangan@nvidia.com> <201206211450.35713.arnd@arndb.de> <20120621161459.GY4037@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <201206211717.46142.arnd@arndb.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <201206211717.46142.arnd@arndb.de>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>, Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com>, lrg@ti.com, rob.herring@calxeda.com, grant.likely@secretlab.ca, linus.walleij@linaro.org, lee.jones@linaro.org, devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org

On 06/21/2012 11:17 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 21 June 2012, Mark Brown wrote:
...
>> I'm also not sure if the tooling works well for allowing people to
>> include standard DTs for chips and add new properties to nodes for the
>> board specific configuration, though I think I've seen a few things
>> which suggested that was dealt with reasonably well.
> 
> It should never be necessary to add board-specific properties in the
> nodes that describe the SoC specific bits. What I was referring to
> is just moving the data that currently resides in the regulator
> driver into DT.

I guess I must be misunderstanding that comment - there are many many
examples of boards adding properties to nodes that describe the SoC. For
example, the GPIOs used by SDHCI controllers, board-specific max clock
rates for SDHCI or I2C controllers, pinmux configuration properties, to
name just a few.