Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] regulator: helper routine to extract regulator_init_data

[Rajendra Nayak <rnayak-l0cyMroinI0@public.gmane.org>]

On Tuesday 25 October 2011 12:22 PM, Shawn Guo wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 11:30:19AM +0530, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
>> On Monday 24 October 2011 07:17 PM, Shawn Guo wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 02:43:58PM +0530, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
>>>> Case 2:
>>>> One device for all regulators:
>>>>
>>>> DT nodes look something like this
>>>>
>>>> regulators {
>>>> 	reg1: reg@1 {
>>>> 			...
>>>> 			...
>>>> 	};
>>>>
>>>> 	reg2: reg@2 {
>>>> 			...
>>>> 			...
>>>> 	};
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> The regulator driver probes only one device and the dev->of_node
>>>> points to the "regulators" node above.
>>>
>>> The mc13892 example I put in the reply to Grant demonstrates that
>>> for some case, dev->of_node is NULL (devices are created by mfd core).
>>
>> In that case should you not be first converting the mfd driver to
>> register regulator devices using DT?
>
> The mc13892 mfd driver calls mfd_add_devices() to add device for
> mc13892 regulator driver.  Are you suggesting that I should hack
> mfd_add_devices() to have device_node of 'regulators' attached?
> The mfd is not a bus like i2c and spi, so I'm not sure this is the
> right thing to do.
>
>> Thats what we did for OMAP, and hence we always have the of_node
>> populated when the regulator devices are probed.
>> See this patch from Benoit on how thats done for twl devices..
>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=131489864814428&w=2
>>
> OMAP is "Case 1", and we are talking about "Case 2".

I don't see why it wouldn't work for "Case 2". The only difference
is in case of "Case 1", the dev->of_node would already point to
the right regulator node, like 'reg1', 'reg2' above.
In case of "Case 2", the dev->of_node would point to the 'regulators'
node instead, and the driver could then do a for_each_child_of_node()
to iterate over all its children to get 'reg1', 'reg2' etc.

>