On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 04:15:46PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: > * Mark Brown wrote:
> > ...they all seem to be explicitly named in the device tree so presumably > > there's enough information in there for the driver to pick any set of > > regulators in any order. This would be much nicer to use. > I don't like it much either. The only reason that requirement exists is > because it makes the assignment of the regulator ID (as defined in the > include/linux/mfd/tps6586x.h header) very trivial. Would it be better to > look up the ID based on the node name (sm0 --> TPS6586X_ID_SM_0, ...)? > Then the only requirement would be that the names match. Yes, that's going to be more code but much nicer for users.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
