Hi! On Mon 2015-10-12 16:47:15, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:00:45AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > Does this look like a step in right direction? > > > static const struct regulator_desc arizona_ldo1_hc = { > > - .name = "LDO1", > > No, you definitely shouldn't be doing this - the regulator names should > reflect the names the device has in the datasheet to aid people in going > from software to the hardware and back again. They shouldn't be > dynamically generated at runtime. If you need to namespace by device
They already are, see wm831x-ldo.c . > provide an interface which explicitly namespaces by device rather than > hacking it into another interface, the usual thing is to use the struct > device as the context. I'll need some more help here. I need to use it from ALSA, so I don't think I can influence that interface easily. What is currently in tree _does not work_, as there are two arizona chips, and two "LDO1" regulators. (Doable) suggestions how to fix that are welcome. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/