Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 22 May 2012 12:27:35 -0600 | From | Stephen Warren <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] ARM: dt: tegra: cardhu: register core regulator tps65911 |
| |
On 05/22/2012 11:56 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote: > On Tuesday 22 May 2012 10:49 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: >> On 05/22/2012 11:09 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote: >>> On Tuesday 22 May 2012 10:10 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: >>>> On 05/22/2012 07:05 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote: >>>>> Add device info for the PMIC device tps65911 in tegra-cardhu >>>>> dts file. This device supports the multiple regulator rails, >>>>> gpio, interrupts. ... >>>> Nitpicky, but the labels might be more logical as reg_vdd1 rather than >>>> vdd1_reg, but not a big deal. >>>> >>>> So, please replace the line above with: >>>> >>>> reg_vdd1: regulator@0 { >>>> reg = <0>; >>> >>> Why do we really require the reg at all? >>> I dont think any usage of doing this.
Oh, perhaps you meant the reg property not "reg_" in the label name?
It is required because the parent node has #address-cells and #size-cells and because the node name itself has a unit address ("@nnn").
>> I guess if these regulators are enabled at boot and always on, we don't >> even need the labels for now; we could add labels later as/when drivers >> begin to dynamically control the regulators. > > I think we should provide the label here whether it is always on or not. > The driver who uses the rails will not aware that rail is always on or not. > Second thing is that this gives uniformity and whenever any consumer get > added, we will not touch this part, only will be change in the driver > specific part.
Yes, if drivers are referring to these nodes, you do need the label.
| |