From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Brown Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 08:27:26 +0000 Subject: Re: regulator node names and unit-addresses? (Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] ARM: shmobile: kzm9d: Remove spurio Message-Id: <20140924082726.GX4015@sirena.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="qRqofxetdBO9L27H" List-Id: References: <20140924081455.GU4015@sirena.org.uk> In-Reply-To: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org --qRqofxetdBO9L27H Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:21:12AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > > 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@0" and "regulator@1"? I don't care what they're called so long as things work; the DT people are the ones to ask though. --qRqofxetdBO9L27H Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUIoBtAAoJECTWi3JdVIfQcBwH/RPaghAYlu5qUpsvSrTkSIu9 ksbjo3QtgXhNyX2yLpwXla4v6zJSLcSQ8jlHBxvUeHWcGsS9LJyyi26TPuFvAA0J zMZSNqSchAaIfpnseR0m+hTSxegOevDdaMmAEz+HdkQIFD20aBc6kpZtk85ebRZX FYu/B5DcQIvUVssMqzW/VFwMd48IemU5KqzG8+r6rVp1Wta8EbZQdasfoRGAPji+ k8wlhyRwekQmPDyg1a2nKEga9qPCd0d146nEPDe0I8UXRdRIGD4VON7Df7tAGxr+ LvsAkYl5pCzKxMNPH7exwLASxk1i0zOx4JF/zGARqpIG6YJ5FgGXPjrjCy70jRM= =nju0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --qRqofxetdBO9L27H-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Brown Subject: Re: regulator node names and unit-addresses? (Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] ARM: shmobile: kzm9d: Remove spurious regulator base addresses) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 09:27:26 +0100 Message-ID: <20140924082726.GX4015@sirena.org.uk> References: <20140924081455.GU4015@sirena.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6790311168108756246==" Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , Linux-sh list , Magnus Damm , Liam Girdwood , Olof Johansson , Simon Horman , Ulrich Hecht , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org --===============6790311168108756246== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="qRqofxetdBO9L27H" Content-Disposition: inline --qRqofxetdBO9L27H Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:21:12AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > > 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@0" and "regulator@1"? I don't care what they're called so long as things work; the DT people are the ones to ask though. --qRqofxetdBO9L27H Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUIoBtAAoJECTWi3JdVIfQcBwH/RPaghAYlu5qUpsvSrTkSIu9 ksbjo3QtgXhNyX2yLpwXla4v6zJSLcSQ8jlHBxvUeHWcGsS9LJyyi26TPuFvAA0J zMZSNqSchAaIfpnseR0m+hTSxegOevDdaMmAEz+HdkQIFD20aBc6kpZtk85ebRZX FYu/B5DcQIvUVssMqzW/VFwMd48IemU5KqzG8+r6rVp1Wta8EbZQdasfoRGAPji+ k8wlhyRwekQmPDyg1a2nKEga9qPCd0d146nEPDe0I8UXRdRIGD4VON7Df7tAGxr+ LvsAkYl5pCzKxMNPH7exwLASxk1i0zOx4JF/zGARqpIG6YJ5FgGXPjrjCy70jRM= =nju0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --qRqofxetdBO9L27H-- --===============6790311168108756246== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel --===============6790311168108756246==-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: broonie@kernel.org (Mark Brown) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 09:27:26 +0100 Subject: regulator node names and unit-addresses? (Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] ARM: shmobile: kzm9d: Remove spurious regulator base addresses) In-Reply-To: References: <20140924081455.GU4015@sirena.org.uk> Message-ID: <20140924082726.GX4015@sirena.org.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:21:12AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > > 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: