[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151116182354.GI31303@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 18:23:54 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: "Andrew F. Davis" <afd@...com>
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 Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 01:40:38PM -0600, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
> On 11/10/2015 12:44 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> >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).
Yes, we should go that way. No, there is nothing meaningful being lost
- the fact that there is zero paramterisation in the bindings and each
subfunction has the full device name as a compatible string ought to be
a big red flag here.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists