On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 11:39:42PM +0800, Ying-Chun Liu (PaulLiu) wrote:
> +#ifdef CONFIG_OF
> + struct device_node *nproot = da9052->dev->of_node;
> + struct device_node *np;
> + int c;
> +
> + if (!nproot) {
> + ret = -ENODEV;
> + goto err;
> + }
> +
> + nproot = of_find_node_by_name(nproot, "regulators");
> + if (!nproot) {
> + ret = -ENODEV;
> + goto err;
> + }
> +
> + c = 0;
> + for (np = of_get_next_child(nproot, NULL);
> + np != NULL;
> + np = of_get_next_child(nproot, np)) {
> + if (c == pdev->id) {
> + initdata = of_get_regulator_init_data(
> + &pdev->dev, np);
> + break;
> + }
> + c++;
> + }This is really quite unclear but it looks like this is relying on the order of regulators in the OF table to match things. As I said in my reply to the first patch this is really poor for usability and it's also making the code here more obscure - we should be looking for the regulator nodes by name.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
