[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56424836.7000608@ti.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 13:40:38 -0600
From: "Andrew F. Davis" <afd@...com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
CC: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>,
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/5] regulator: tps65912: Add regulator driver for the
TPS65912 PMIC
On 11/10/2015 12:44 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 11:52:12AM -0600, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
>
>> Anyway, All I'm trying to do here is keep things clean in the DT. We only have
>> one consistent option:
>
> No, not really.
>
>> Match all sub parts by compatible:
>
>> Or we end up with some hybrid approach, matching some on node name, others
>> on compatible when needed. Yes, the above matches Linux device model (still
>> not sure why that is such a problem?), but it also matches modular functionality
>> in the device.
>
> There's also the third option where we don't have any compatible strings
> in the subnodes at all.
>
Ok, two, but would you really want to go that way? Matching by node name costs
us all of the flexibility of DT sub-device selection. Still don't see an upside
as we would now be locked to node names instead of compatible strings to declare
component type compatibility (what they are for).
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists