From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Warren Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ARM: dt: tegra: cardhu: register core regulator tps65911 Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 12:27:35 -0600 Message-ID: <4FBBDA97.6000006@wwwdotorg.org> References: <1337691917-15040-1-git-send-email-ldewangan@nvidia.com> <1337691917-15040-2-git-send-email-ldewangan@nvidia.com> <4FBBC192.7030900@wwwdotorg.org> <4FBBC830.2060802@nvidia.com> <4FBBCA8F.3050903@wwwdotorg.org> <4FBBD33C.8020802@nvidia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4FBBD33C.8020802-DDmLM1+adcrQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-tegra-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Laxman Dewangan Cc: Stephen Warren , "olof-nZhT3qVonbNeoWH0uzbU5w@public.gmane.org" , "linux-lFZ/pmaqli7XmaaqVzeoHQ@public.gmane.org" , "linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "linux-tegra-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , Mark Brown List-Id: linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org On 05/22/2012 11:56 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote: > On Tuesday 22 May 2012 10:49 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: >> On 05/22/2012 11:09 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote: >>> On Tuesday 22 May 2012 10:10 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: >>>> On 05/22/2012 07:05 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote: >>>>> Add device info for the PMIC device tps65911 in tegra-cardhu >>>>> dts file. This device supports the multiple regulator rails, >>>>> gpio, interrupts. ... >>>> Nitpicky, but the labels might be more logical as reg_vdd1 rather than >>>> vdd1_reg, but not a big deal. >>>> >>>> So, please replace the line above with: >>>> >>>> reg_vdd1: regulator@0 { >>>> reg = <0>; >>> >>> Why do we really require the reg at all? >>> I dont think any usage of doing this. Oh, perhaps you meant the reg property not "reg_" in the label name? It is required because the parent node has #address-cells and #size-cells and because the node name itself has a unit address ("@nnn"). >> I guess if these regulators are enabled at boot and always on, we don't >> even need the labels for now; we could add labels later as/when drivers >> begin to dynamically control the regulators. > > I think we should provide the label here whether it is always on or not. > The driver who uses the rails will not aware that rail is always on or not. > Second thing is that this gives uniformity and whenever any consumer get > added, we will not touch this part, only will be change in the driver > specific part. Yes, if drivers are referring to these nodes, you do need the label.