On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 02:54:16PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 04:52:05PM +0530, Rajendra Nayak wrote: > > > regulator = <®ulator1>,<®ulator2>; > > regulator-names = "supply1","supply2"; > > }; > > This syntax is really painful - we're relying on keeping two arrays in > sync which isn't good for legibility or robustness. I'd expect > something like having a property with the supply name referencing the > regulator node concerned like: > > dbvdd = <®ulator1>; > dcvdd = <®ulator2>; > > or something. Keeping the two arrays separate doesn't seem great.
We've got two competing approaches here. For reg and interrupts, the proposal on the table that we talked about at LPC is to do reg-names and interrupts-names so as to preserve the existing semantics of the reg and interrupts properties. For gpios we're using the binding "<name>-gpios" for named gpio references. There isn't the same pressure to preserve existing bindings in that case. I'm okay with either approach, providing that "-regulator" is encoded into the name. g. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
