On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Mark Brown
[off-list ref] wrote:

On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 02:22:16PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:

quoted

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

quoted

quoted

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.

quoted

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

I think it's useful to define how consumers are supposed to do this
somewhere - it is actually part of the core binding how consumers are
supposed to do this.

Yeah, ok, but it shouldn't be part of the description of regulator
properties per se. See how gpio does it, defining how a gpio-specifier
is crafted. The equivalent should be done for regulators.

There's also a bit of magic here for chained supplies with one regulator
supplying another (eg, using a DCDC to drop the system supply down to a
lower voltage to supply a bunch of LDOs for improved efficiency).

Describing that in the device tree using regulator-specifiers
shouldn't be too bad? The LDO will reference the DCDC as the parent
supply (or input or whatever language you prefer). They don't have to
be in the same topology, they will instead be under whatever
controller/bus they are on for control -- i2c, etc.


-Olof