On 31/05/12 00:41, Mark Brown wrote:

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:22:33PM +0800, Lee Jones wrote:

quoted

On 30/05/12 23:11, Mark Brown wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

	vin-supply =<&db8500_vape_reg>;
	vmmc-supply =<&ab8500_ldo_aux2_reg>;

quoted

quoted

Oh, oops.  This is going to be fun when someone puts down two of the
same PMIC on a system...

quoted

What does that mean sorry?

Lots of regulators are using this mechanism for identifying child nodes.
If the node name is also used as a handle by other things to reference
the regulator then if you have two PMICs of the same type DTC isn't
going to be able to figure out which node you mean.

Yes, so it doesn't look like this is an issue.

This:

sdi at 80126000 {
         vmmc-supply = <&ab8500_ldo_aux3_reg>;
};

Is the same as, and will cause no more issues than:

static struct regulator_consumer_supply ab8500_vaux3_consumers[] = {
        REGULATOR_SUPPLY("vmmc", "sdi0"),
};

... because only nodes which we care about (dictated by compatible 
declaration protections) will be parsed. So different platforms will not 
affect each other.

Kind regards,
Lee

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead
M: +44 77 88 633 515
Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog