Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:00:06 +0100 | From | Mark Brown <> | Subject | Re: Regulator supplies when using Device Tree |
| |
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 06:17:59PM -0700, Michael Bohan wrote:
> I'm curious if there was a reason we didn't standardize on a binding > name for regulator supplies when using Device Tree. This appears to > cause duplicated code for regulator drivers that support devices > that may or may not have supplies specified.
Supplies are *always* specified using the name from the part data sheet, anything to do with regulator-regulator supplies is a Linux implementation detail.
> Also, I'm curious why we need two pointers for the supply name. > There's currently regulator_desc->supply_name, recently added for > Device Tree, and then the old init_data->supply_regulator. Is there > a need for both?
We can't just break the build for systems using supply_regulator. [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |