From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Simon Horman Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 01:24:14 +0000 Subject: Re: regulator node names and unit-addresses? (Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] ARM: shmobile: kzm9d: Remove spurio Message-Id: <20140925012414.GE20466@verge.net.au> List-Id: References: <20140924081455.GU4015@sirena.org.uk> <20140924082726.GX4015@sirena.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20140924082726.GX4015@sirena.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org 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: > > 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. Ok, lets just leave them as "regulator@0" and "regulator@1". If better names emerge then we can use them. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Simon Horman Subject: Re: regulator node names and unit-addresses? (Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] ARM: shmobile: kzm9d: Remove spurious regulator base addresses) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 10:24:14 +0900 Message-ID: <20140925012414.GE20466@verge.net.au> References: <20140924081455.GU4015@sirena.org.uk> <20140924082726.GX4015@sirena.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140924082726.GX4015@sirena.org.uk> Sender: linux-sh-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Mark Brown Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven , Liam Girdwood , Linux-sh list , Ulrich Hecht , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Magnus Damm , Olof Johansson , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org 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: > > 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. Ok, lets just leave them as "regulator@0" and "regulator@1". If better names emerge then we can use them. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: horms@verge.net.au (Simon Horman) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 10:24:14 +0900 Subject: regulator node names and unit-addresses? (Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] ARM: shmobile: kzm9d: Remove spurious regulator base addresses) In-Reply-To: <20140924082726.GX4015@sirena.org.uk> References: <20140924081455.GU4015@sirena.org.uk> <20140924082726.GX4015@sirena.org.uk> Message-ID: <20140925012414.GE20466@verge.net.au> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org 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: > > 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. Ok, lets just leave them as "regulator at 0" and "regulator at 1". If better names emerge then we can use them.