linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] ARM: dt: tegra: cardhu: register core regulator tps65911

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4FD250DB.2090207@nvidia.com>
Date:	Sat, 9 Jun 2012 00:52:03 +0530
From:	Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>
To:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
CC:	"olof@...om.net" <olof@...om.net>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>,
	"linux@....linux.org.uk" <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ARM: dt: tegra: cardhu: register core regulator tps65911

On Saturday 02 June 2012 12:53 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>
> We could either augment struct of_regulator_match with an integer ID
> field for each regulator (which would perhaps make it slightly painful
> to write the nodes and keep the IDs matched up), or add a new property
> to each regulator provider node e.g. regulator-id which contained the
> name that the regulator driver knows the regulator as (which would match
> struct of_regulator_match.name), since the existing regulator-name
> property is used for semantically different purposes.
>
> That would result in:
>
>> tps65911: tps65911@2d {
>> 	compatible = "ti,tps65911";
>> 	reg =<0x2d>;
>>
>> 	#gpio-cells =<2>;
>> 	gpio-controller;
>>
>> 	regulators {
>> 		#address-cells =<1>;
>> 		#size-cells =<0>;
>>
>> 		vdd1_reg: regulator@0 {
>> 			reg =<0>;
>> 			regulator-id = "vdd1"; /* Internal name */
>> 			regulator-name = "vdd_1v2_gen"; /* Signal on schematic */
> ...
>> 		};
>>
>> 		vdd2_reg: regulator@1 {
>> 			reg =<1>;
>> 			regulator-id = "vdd2";
>> 			regulator-name = "vdd_1v5_gen";
> ...


So is it fine to go on the above binding?
In this case we need to find the match_regulator based on regulator-id 
rather than by name.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/