Re: regulator node names and unit-addresses? (Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] ARM: shmobile: kzm9d: Remove spurious regulator base addresses)

Hi Mark,

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Mark Brown [off-list ref] wrote:

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 09:02:23AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 3:13 AM, Simon Horman [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

What should we call the nodes?

quoted

"regulator0" and "regulator1"?
"regulator1v8" and "regulator3v3"?

quoted

Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/regulator.txt doesn't mention
node names or (presence/lack of) unit-adresses, but the examples do have
unit-addresses.

quoted

Is this another case where we don't follow the "no reg, no unit-address"
ePAPR rule?

As far as the regulator API is concerned the node name is completly
immaterial and all this stuff is just verbiage we're forced to include.
As far as I can tell the requirement that node names be in the form
"regulator" or whatever is just another thing that wasn't terribly well
thought through in ePAPR, they were trying to do classes I think.

So perhaps we should just keep "regulator at 0" and "regulator at 1"?

Thanks!

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert at linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:21:12AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Mark Brown [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

As far as the regulator API is concerned the node name is completly
immaterial and all this stuff is just verbiage we're forced to include.
As far as I can tell the requirement that node names be in the form
"regulator" or whatever is just another thing that wasn't terribly well
thought through in ePAPR, they were trying to do classes I think.

So perhaps we should just keep "regulator at 0" and "regulator at 1"?

I don't care what they're called so long as things work; the DT people
are the ones to ask though.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20140924/e49d3b74/attachment.sig>

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 09:27:26AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:21:12AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Mark Brown [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

As far as the regulator API is concerned the node name is completly
immaterial and all this stuff is just verbiage we're forced to include.
As far as I can tell the requirement that node names be in the form
"regulator" or whatever is just another thing that wasn't terribly well
thought through in ePAPR, they were trying to do classes I think.

quoted

So perhaps we should just keep "regulator at 0" and "regulator at 1"?

I don't care what they're called so long as things work; the DT people
are the ones to ask though.

Ok, lets just leave them as "regulator at 0" and "regulator at 1".
If better names emerge then we can use them.