[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120520120626.GD20652@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 13:06:27 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>
Cc: "lrg@...com" <lrg@...com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: core: use correct device for device supply
lookup
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 04:09:43PM +0530, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
> On Sunday 20 May 2012 02:31 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> >No. This is happening because the device tree doesn't have any supplies
> >mapped for the regulators. This is nothing at all to do with where the
> >code looks for the supplies, no matter where it looks there's nothing to
> >find.
> No, we should not put the regulator mapping under parent, need to
> have under "regulator" otherwise we need to fix the issue in dt
> parsing where first it looks for "regulator" and then parse the rail
> mapping.
What is this issue and why should we not fix it?
> Now when compare to driver mc13892-regulator.c, the
> tps65910-regulator is almost same like this.
> The driver mc13892-regulator.c have following code in probe:
...
> I want to have similar fix in my tps65910-regulator.c.
So why can't you do what mc13892 is doing?
> I am sorry that I am not able to explain the issue correctly. I think
> I will take help from Stephen Warren here to first explain him and
> then I will come back for core changes.
OK, I guess. I think a key thing here is that these shouldn't be any
different to any other supply. Adding something that is specific to
regulator-regulator supplies doesn't do that so is a clear sign that
something has been missed.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists