Re: [PATCH 2/2] ARM: dt: tegra: cardhu: register core regulator tps65911

[Mitch Bradley <wmb-D5eQfiDGL7eakBO8gow8eQ@public.gmane.org>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1435 bytes --]

On 6/3/2012 2:05 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 09:45:10PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
>
>> I tend to agree with Steven's and Olof's comments in this thread. As the
>> node names generally don't have much meaning, I don't think we should
>> start now. We've already got multiple styles of bindings and I don't
>> think we need more.
>
> Well, if we're going to go with an existing idiom the normal thing would
> be an ordered array which is absolutely abysmal from a usability
> standpoint.  Compatible properties don't work as the whole reason we
> have an issue here is that people want to have a single node
> representing a group of regulators - for regulators which we can add a
> compatible property to we're already doing that and have no issue.
>
> What device tree seems to need rather badly is a way of representing
> key/value pairs -

Perhaps ironically, the fundamental device tree construct - the 
"property" - is a key/value pair.

> aside from the legacy bindings that seems to be the
> major source of pain when trying to contort things into DT.
>
> Using the "regulator" string that we have to put in the binding (which
> is currently totally meaningless) does seem like a good way forward
> here.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> devicetree-discuss mailing list
> devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org
> https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 2443 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 192 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
devicetree-discuss mailing list
devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss