On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 09:20:05PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > On 07-08-17 17:41, Mark Brown wrote:
> > I2C has a perfectly good platform_data pointer in the board info for > > this stuff. > True, so you are suggesting that I define a bq24190_platform_data > struct with a regulator_init_data pointer in there I guess? Yes. > I don't think the power-supply maintainers will be enthusiastic > about this (hi Sebastian). But that does make sense and is > actually a good idea for tackling the problem of regulator_init_data. Why not? This is just really standard usage of platform data. > Would extending the struct regulator_map with a const char *provider_name: > struct regulator_map { > struct list_head list; > const char *dev_name; /* The dev_name() for the consumer */ > const char *supply; > struct regulator_dev *regulator; > const char *provider; /* The dev_name() for the regulator parent-dev > */ > }; Please don't invent new terminology like this. Just call it a regulator name. > Alternatively the entry could additionally contain a provider_supply_name > so that we can make arbitrary consumer-dev-name + consumer-supply-name > provider-dev-name + provider-supply-name matches. That would probably > be more flexible then requiring the supply name to match. I'm sorry but I can't follow what you mean here. What do you mean by "provider_supply_name"?
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel