linux-sh.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* regulator node names and unit-addresses? (Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] ARM: shmobile: kzm9d: Remove spurious r
@ 2014-09-24  7:02 Geert Uytterhoeven
  2014-09-24  8:14 ` regulator node names and unit-addresses? (Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] ARM: shmobile: kzm9d: Remove spurio Mark Brown
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Geert Uytterhoeven @ 2014-09-24  7:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-arm-kernel

Hi Simon,

(pulling in regulator people and DT list)

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 3:13 AM, Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 09:33:49AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 2:48 AM, Simon Horman
>> <horms+renesas@verge.net.au> wrote:
>> > As there is no reg property the regulator nodes should
>> > not include @...
>>
>> You missed an important part of my comment:
>>
>> "However, in the absence of a unit-address, the node name must be unique."
>>
>> > Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
>> > Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <horms+renesas@verge.net.au>
>> >
>> > ---
>> > v2
>> > * First post
>> > ---
>> >  arch/arm/boot/dts/emev2-kzm9d.dts | 4 ++--
>> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/emev2-kzm9d.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/emev2-kzm9d.dts
>> > index 50ccd15..f27fcf0 100644
>> > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/emev2-kzm9d.dts
>> > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/emev2-kzm9d.dts
>> > @@ -27,7 +27,7 @@
>> >                 bootargs = "console=ttyS1,115200n81 ignore_loglevel root=/dev/nfs ip=dhcp";
>> >         };
>> >
>> > -       reg_1p8v: regulator@0 {
>> > +       reg_1p8v: regulator {
>> >                 compatible = "regulator-fixed";
>> >                 regulator-name = "fixed-1.8V";
>> >                 regulator-min-microvolt = <1800000>;
>> > @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@
>> >                 regulator-boot-on;
>> >         };
>> >
>> > -       reg_3p3v: regulator@1 {
>> > +       reg_3p3v: regulator {
>> >                 compatible = "regulator-fixed";
>> >                 regulator-name = "fixed-3.3V";
>> >                 regulator-min-microvolt = <3300000>;
>>
>> Now there are two "regulator" nodes.
>>
>> Dtc will not complain, but will assume the second contains overrides for
>> first. "vddvario-supply" and "vdd33a-supply" of node "lan9220@20000000"
>> will both the point to the same node, and the network may not work.
>>
>> You can see this yourself running
>>
>>     dtc -I dtb -O dts arch/arm/boot/dts/emev2-kzm9d.dtb
>
> What should we call the nodes?

"regulator0" and "regulator1"?
"regulator1v8" and "regulator3v3"?

Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/regulator.txt doesn't mention
node names or (presence/lack of) unit-adresses, but the examples do have
unit-addresses.

Is this another case where we don't follow the "no reg, no unit-address"
ePAPR rule?

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: regulator node names and unit-addresses? (Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] ARM: shmobile: kzm9d: Remove spurio
  2014-09-24  7:02 regulator node names and unit-addresses? (Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] ARM: shmobile: kzm9d: Remove spurious r Geert Uytterhoeven
@ 2014-09-24  8:14 ` Mark Brown
  2014-09-24  8:21   ` Geert Uytterhoeven
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Mark Brown @ 2014-09-24  8:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-arm-kernel

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 858 bytes --]

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 09:02:23AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 3:13 AM, Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au> wrote:

> > What should we call the nodes?

> "regulator0" and "regulator1"?
> "regulator1v8" and "regulator3v3"?

> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/regulator.txt doesn't mention
> node names or (presence/lack of) unit-adresses, but the examples do have
> unit-addresses.

> Is this another case where we don't follow the "no reg, no unit-address"
> ePAPR rule?

As far as the regulator API is concerned the node name is completly
immaterial and all this stuff is just verbiage we're forced to include.
As far as I can tell the requirement that node names be in the form
"regulator" or whatever is just another thing that wasn't terribly well
thought through in ePAPR, they were trying to do classes I think.

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: regulator node names and unit-addresses? (Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] ARM: shmobile: kzm9d: Remove spurio
  2014-09-24  8:14 ` regulator node names and unit-addresses? (Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] ARM: shmobile: kzm9d: Remove spurio Mark Brown
@ 2014-09-24  8:21   ` Geert Uytterhoeven
  2014-09-24  8:27     ` Mark Brown
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Geert Uytterhoeven @ 2014-09-24  8:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-arm-kernel

Hi Mark,

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 09:02:23AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 3:13 AM, Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au> wrote:
>
>> > What should we call the nodes?
>
>> "regulator0" and "regulator1"?
>> "regulator1v8" and "regulator3v3"?
>
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/regulator.txt doesn't mention
>> node names or (presence/lack of) unit-adresses, but the examples do have
>> unit-addresses.
>
>> Is this another case where we don't follow the "no reg, no unit-address"
>> ePAPR rule?
>
> As far as the regulator API is concerned the node name is completly
> immaterial and all this stuff is just verbiage we're forced to include.
> As far as I can tell the requirement that node names be in the form
> "regulator" or whatever is just another thing that wasn't terribly well
> thought through in ePAPR, they were trying to do classes I think.

So perhaps we should just keep "regulator@0" and "regulator@1"?

Thanks!

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: regulator node names and unit-addresses? (Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] ARM: shmobile: kzm9d: Remove spurio
  2014-09-24  8:21   ` Geert Uytterhoeven
@ 2014-09-24  8:27     ` Mark Brown
  2014-09-25  1:24       ` Simon Horman
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Mark Brown @ 2014-09-24  8:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-arm-kernel

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 677 bytes --]

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:21:12AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:

> > As far as the regulator API is concerned the node name is completly
> > immaterial and all this stuff is just verbiage we're forced to include.
> > As far as I can tell the requirement that node names be in the form
> > "regulator" or whatever is just another thing that wasn't terribly well
> > thought through in ePAPR, they were trying to do classes I think.

> So perhaps we should just keep "regulator@0" and "regulator@1"?

I don't care what they're called so long as things work; the DT people
are the ones to ask though.

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: regulator node names and unit-addresses? (Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] ARM: shmobile: kzm9d: Remove spurio
  2014-09-24  8:27     ` Mark Brown
@ 2014-09-25  1:24       ` Simon Horman
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Simon Horman @ 2014-09-25  1:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-arm-kernel

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 09:27:26AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:21:12AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
> > > As far as the regulator API is concerned the node name is completly
> > > immaterial and all this stuff is just verbiage we're forced to include.
> > > As far as I can tell the requirement that node names be in the form
> > > "regulator" or whatever is just another thing that wasn't terribly well
> > > thought through in ePAPR, they were trying to do classes I think.
> 
> > So perhaps we should just keep "regulator@0" and "regulator@1"?
> 
> I don't care what they're called so long as things work; the DT people
> are the ones to ask though.

Ok, lets just leave them as "regulator@0" and "regulator@1".
If better names emerge then we can use them.



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2014-09-25  1:24 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2014-09-24  7:02 regulator node names and unit-addresses? (Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] ARM: shmobile: kzm9d: Remove spurious r Geert Uytterhoeven
2014-09-24  8:14 ` regulator node names and unit-addresses? (Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] ARM: shmobile: kzm9d: Remove spurio Mark Brown
2014-09-24  8:21   ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2014-09-24  8:27     ` Mark Brown
2014-09-25  1:24       ` Simon Horman

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).