On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 16:15:46 +0100, Thierry Reding
<thierry.red...@avionic-design.de> wrote:
> * Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 03:51:25PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> >
> > > +- gpio-controller: mark the device as a GPIO controller
> > > +- regulators: list of regulators provided by this controller, must be in
> > > the
> > > + following order:
> > > + SM0, SM1, SM2, LDO0, LDO1, LDO2, LDO3, LDO4, LDO5, LDO6, LDO7, LDO8,
> > > LDO9
> >
> > This ordering requirement is fairly sad, if there are unused regulators
> > they still need to be listed even though...
It's worse than that; the DT provides absolutely no guarantees about the
ordering of either child nodes or properties.
> >
> > > + sm0_reg: sm0 {
> > > + regulator-min-microvolt = < 725000>;
> > > + regulator-max-microvolt = <1500000>;
> > > + regulator-boot-on;
> > > + regulator-always-on;
> > > + };
> > > +
> > > + sm1_reg: sm1 {
> >
> > ...they all seem to be explicitly named in the device tree so presumably
> > there's enough information in there for the driver to pick any set of
> > regulators in any order. This would be much nicer to use.
>
> I don't like it much either. The only reason that requirement exists is
> because it makes the assignment of the regulator ID (as defined in the
> include/linux/mfd/tps6586x.h header) very trivial. Would it be better to
> look up the ID based on the node name (sm0 --> TPS6586X_ID_SM_0, ...)?
>
> Then the only requirement would be that the names match.
Yes, please look up id via name. Alternately you can give each child node
a 'reg' property and put #address-cells = <1>; #size-cells = <0>; in the
parent (assuming the regulator number is a documented attribute of the
hardware and not just a convenient linux construct).
g.
_______________________________________________
devicetree-discuss mailing list
devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
