On 12.10.2017 04:46, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: > On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 6:04 PM, Felix Brack <f...@ltec.ch> wrote: >> This patch extends pmic_bind_children prefix matching. In addition to >> the node name the property regulator-name is used while trying to match >> prefixes. This allows assigning different drivers to regulator nodes >> named regulator@1 and regulator@10 for example. > > No. See the regulator bindings: > > Optional properties: > - regulator-name: A string used as a descriptive name for regulator outputs > The actual regulator.txt states:
Optional properties: - regulator-name: a string, required by the regulator uclass This was the reason for choosing the regulator-name property. > This can vary from board to board. The name should match the power rail > name of the board (which may not be the same as the regulator chip's > output name). > Exactly. I totally agree but as stated in an earlier post: I did not define the names for the regulators and modifying them is almost certainly not the right way to go. Let me explain this briefly. The regulator names I'm trying to match are those from tps65910.dtsi, an include file. The exact same file is part of the LINUX kernel. Therefore I resigned suggesting the modification of the node names. > If you have multiple regulator nodes which need to be differentiated, > you need to use the deprecated "regulator-compatible" property, or just > use the standard compatible property. > Good point. I would not use a deprecated property but the compatible property seems reasonable to me. So you agree that the patch's concept could be retained while substituting the node-name property by the compatible property? Felix _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
