From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Andrew F. Davis" <afd@ti.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/5] regulator: tps65912: Add regulator driver for the
 TPS65912 PMIC
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 13:40:38 -0600
Message-ID: <56424836.7000608@ti.com>
References: <20151105101417.GM1717@sirena.org.uk> <563B9A10.4020907@ti.com>
 <20151106104322.GA18409@sirena.org.uk> <563CED25.6020405@ti.com>
 <20151106211651.GJ18409@sirena.org.uk> <5640DAC0.9080008@ti.com>
 <20151110095719.GC12392@sirena.org.uk> <56421FA5.1020103@ti.com>
 <20151110170447.GI12392@sirena.org.uk> <56422ECC.6070603@ti.com>
 <20151110184408.GJ12392@sirena.org.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20151110184408.GJ12392@sirena.org.uk>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>, Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@arm.com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>, Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk>, Kumar Gala <galak@codeaurora.org>, Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>, Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@gmail.com>, Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com>, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org

On 11/10/2015 12:44 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 11:52:12AM -0600, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
>
>> Anyway, All I'm trying to do here is keep things clean in the DT. We only have
>> one consistent option:
>
> No, not really.
>
>> Match all sub parts by compatible:
>
>> Or we end up with some hybrid approach, matching some on node name, others
>> on compatible when needed. Yes, the above matches Linux device model (still
>> not sure why that is such a problem?), but it also matches modular functionality
>> in the device.
>
> There's also the third option where we don't have any compatible strings
> in the subnodes at all.
>

Ok, two, but would you really want to go that way? Matching by node name costs
us all of the flexibility of DT sub-device selection. Still don't see an upside
as we would now be locked to node names instead of compatible strings to declare
component type compatibility (what they are for).