[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120605162214.GA14958@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 17:22:14 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To: David Collins <collinsd@...eaurora.org>
Cc: Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...com>, Liam Girdwood <lrg@...com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: Supporting non-device tree consumers with device tree regulator
drivers
On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 09:16:22AM -0700, David Collins wrote:
> Therefore, we are left with a situation currently where some regulator
> consumer drivers are being probed via device tree and some are being
> probed via board file devices within a single platform. If the regulator
> driver supporting the consumer drivers is converted to use device tree and
> probed via device tree, then the non-device tree consumer drivers will not
> be able to make use of the regulator devices.
This isn't something anyone else seems to be running into - most of the
world is converting entire boards to device tree in one fell swoop and
sticking with normal style until that works.
> Would it be possible to add a new binding that is handled inside of
> of_get_regulator_init_data() or of_get_regulation_constraints() that
> provides a means to directly specify regulator_init_data.consumer_supplies
> entries? Is there some other mechanism that could be used instead to
> handle the mapping?
> One potentially binding could be:
> regulator-consumer-supplies = "supply_name1", "device_name1",
> "supply_name2", "device_name2", ...
Well, we certainly shouldn't be putting this in the device tree as that
rather defeats the point... Some sort of auxdata style thing would be
possible I guess but I'm not sure it's worth bothering.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists