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:

quoted

		regulator = <&regulator1>,<&regulator2>;
		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 = <&regulator1>;
	dcvdd = <&regulator2>;

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.