From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Warren Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v3 1/3] runtime interpreted power sequences Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 10:16:39 -0600 Message-ID: <501FEDE7.1060202@wwwdotorg.org> References: <1343390750-3642-1-git-send-email-acourbot@nvidia.com> <1343390750-3642-2-git-send-email-acourbot@nvidia.com> <50170EA0.1010408@wwwdotorg.org> <501A338D.7080105@nvidia.com> <20120802082157.GA14866@avionic-0098.adnet.avionic-design.de> <20120802181111.GM4537@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <501B2642.4080805@nvidia.com> <20120804141155.GJ10523@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <501F2BAA.8000808@nvidia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <501F2BAA.8000808-DDmLM1+adcrQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-tegra-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Alex Courbot Cc: Mark Brown , Stephen Warren , Simon Glass , Grant Likely , Rob Herring , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Arnd Bergmann , "linux-tegra-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "linux-fbdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org" , Thierry Reding List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 08/05/2012 08:27 PM, Alex Courbot wrote: > On 08/04/2012 11:12 PM, Mark Brown wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 10:15:46AM +0900, Alex Courbot wrote: >>> On Fri 03 Aug 2012 03:11:12 AM JST, Mark Brown wrote: >> >>>> I missed some of the earlier bits of the thread here but why can't >>>> we do >>>> device based lookups? ... > I think we only have two choices for this: > > 1) Stick to the scheme where resources are declared at the device level, > such as they can be referenced by name in the sub-nodes (basically what > I did in this patch): > > backlight { > compatible = "pwm-backlight"; > ... > backlight-supply = <&backlight_reg>; > > power-on-sequence { > step@0 { > regulator = "backlight"; > enable; > }; > > This would translate by a get_regulator(dev, "backlight") in the code > which would be properly resolved. Yes, upon reflection, that scheme does make sense. I withdraw the comments I made re: whether it'd be better to just stick the phandles into the steps.