On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 09:14:48PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:

On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 01:29:05PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 06:54:24PM +0530, Rajendra Nayak wrote:

quoted

quoted

@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+Voltage/Current Regulators

quoted

There should be a mandatory compatible field here, right? I.e. a topmost
generic one, "regulator" or similar.

It's not really useful for the regulator subsystem to directly bind to
the device as something needs to actually control it, the idea is that
this binding is included by reference in the bindings for specific
devices.

Right, same goes for many other devices. Some use a toplevel compatible field,
some do not. Either way, not a big deal if you don't want to include one.

quoted

Also, lower-caps is common instead of V and A.

On the other hand the case is pretty important for SI units

Yeah, true. The fixed regulators used microvolt instead, which could be a good
way to do it.

quoted

quoted

+- <name>-supply: phandle to the parent supply/regulator node

quoted

Having a fixed name here instead of a free form string would probably be a good
idea?

The name will be fixed by the individual device bindings, this is
specifying the general form of a supply property.  Each device binding
will define the set of supplies that the device can use.

Ah, ok. It shouldn't be a part of this binding then and instead be added
to the bindings for the consumers.


-Olof