* regulator node names and unit-addresses? (Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] ARM: shmobile: kzm9d: Remove spurious r
@ 2014-09-24 7:02 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Geert Uytterhoeven @ 2014-09-24 7:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
Hi Simon,
(pulling in regulator people and DT list)
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 3:13 AM, Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 09:33:49AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 2:48 AM, Simon Horman
>> <horms+renesas@verge.net.au> wrote:
>> > As there is no reg property the regulator nodes should
>> > not include @...
>>
>> You missed an important part of my comment:
>>
>> "However, in the absence of a unit-address, the node name must be unique."
>>
>> > Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
>> > Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <horms+renesas@verge.net.au>
>> >
>> > ---
>> > v2
>> > * First post
>> > ---
>> > arch/arm/boot/dts/emev2-kzm9d.dts | 4 ++--
>> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/emev2-kzm9d.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/emev2-kzm9d.dts
>> > index 50ccd15..f27fcf0 100644
>> > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/emev2-kzm9d.dts
>> > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/emev2-kzm9d.dts
>> > @@ -27,7 +27,7 @@
>> > bootargs = "console=ttyS1,115200n81 ignore_loglevel root=/dev/nfs ip=dhcp";
>> > };
>> >
>> > - reg_1p8v: regulator@0 {
>> > + reg_1p8v: regulator {
>> > compatible = "regulator-fixed";
>> > regulator-name = "fixed-1.8V";
>> > regulator-min-microvolt = <1800000>;
>> > @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@
>> > regulator-boot-on;
>> > };
>> >
>> > - reg_3p3v: regulator@1 {
>> > + reg_3p3v: regulator {
>> > compatible = "regulator-fixed";
>> > regulator-name = "fixed-3.3V";
>> > regulator-min-microvolt = <3300000>;
>>
>> Now there are two "regulator" nodes.
>>
>> Dtc will not complain, but will assume the second contains overrides for
>> first. "vddvario-supply" and "vdd33a-supply" of node "lan9220@20000000"
>> will both the point to the same node, and the network may not work.
>>
>> You can see this yourself running
>>
>> dtc -I dtb -O dts arch/arm/boot/dts/emev2-kzm9d.dtb
>
> What should we call the nodes?
"regulator0" and "regulator1"?
"regulator1v8" and "regulator3v3"?
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/regulator.txt doesn't mention
node names or (presence/lack of) unit-adresses, but the examples do have
unit-addresses.
Is this another case where we don't follow the "no reg, no unit-address"
ePAPR rule?
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread* regulator node names and unit-addresses? (Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] ARM: shmobile: kzm9d: Remove spurious regulator base addresses)
@ 2014-09-24 7:02 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Geert Uytterhoeven @ 2014-09-24 7:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
Hi Simon,
(pulling in regulator people and DT list)
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 3:13 AM, Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 09:33:49AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 2:48 AM, Simon Horman
>> <horms+renesas@verge.net.au> wrote:
>> > As there is no reg property the regulator nodes should
>> > not include @...
>>
>> You missed an important part of my comment:
>>
>> "However, in the absence of a unit-address, the node name must be unique."
>>
>> > Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
>> > Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <horms+renesas@verge.net.au>
>> >
>> > ---
>> > v2
>> > * First post
>> > ---
>> > arch/arm/boot/dts/emev2-kzm9d.dts | 4 ++--
>> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/emev2-kzm9d.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/emev2-kzm9d.dts
>> > index 50ccd15..f27fcf0 100644
>> > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/emev2-kzm9d.dts
>> > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/emev2-kzm9d.dts
>> > @@ -27,7 +27,7 @@
>> > bootargs = "console=ttyS1,115200n81 ignore_loglevel root=/dev/nfs ip=dhcp";
>> > };
>> >
>> > - reg_1p8v: regulator at 0 {
>> > + reg_1p8v: regulator {
>> > compatible = "regulator-fixed";
>> > regulator-name = "fixed-1.8V";
>> > regulator-min-microvolt = <1800000>;
>> > @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@
>> > regulator-boot-on;
>> > };
>> >
>> > - reg_3p3v: regulator at 1 {
>> > + reg_3p3v: regulator {
>> > compatible = "regulator-fixed";
>> > regulator-name = "fixed-3.3V";
>> > regulator-min-microvolt = <3300000>;
>>
>> Now there are two "regulator" nodes.
>>
>> Dtc will not complain, but will assume the second contains overrides for
>> first. "vddvario-supply" and "vdd33a-supply" of node "lan9220 at 20000000"
>> will both the point to the same node, and the network may not work.
>>
>> You can see this yourself running
>>
>> dtc -I dtb -O dts arch/arm/boot/dts/emev2-kzm9d.dtb
>
> What should we call the nodes?
"regulator0" and "regulator1"?
"regulator1v8" and "regulator3v3"?
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/regulator.txt doesn't mention
node names or (presence/lack of) unit-adresses, but the examples do have
unit-addresses.
Is this another case where we don't follow the "no reg, no unit-address"
ePAPR rule?
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread* regulator node names and unit-addresses? (Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] ARM: shmobile: kzm9d: Remove spurious regulator base addresses)
@ 2014-09-24 7:02 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Geert Uytterhoeven @ 2014-09-24 7:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Simon Horman
Cc: Mark Brown, Liam Girdwood, Linux-sh list, Ulrich Hecht,
linux-arm-kernel, Magnus Damm, Olof Johansson, devicetree
Hi Simon,
(pulling in regulator people and DT list)
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 3:13 AM, Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 09:33:49AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 2:48 AM, Simon Horman
>> <horms+renesas@verge.net.au> wrote:
>> > As there is no reg property the regulator nodes should
>> > not include @...
>>
>> You missed an important part of my comment:
>>
>> "However, in the absence of a unit-address, the node name must be unique."
>>
>> > Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
>> > Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <horms+renesas@verge.net.au>
>> >
>> > ---
>> > v2
>> > * First post
>> > ---
>> > arch/arm/boot/dts/emev2-kzm9d.dts | 4 ++--
>> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/emev2-kzm9d.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/emev2-kzm9d.dts
>> > index 50ccd15..f27fcf0 100644
>> > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/emev2-kzm9d.dts
>> > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/emev2-kzm9d.dts
>> > @@ -27,7 +27,7 @@
>> > bootargs = "console=ttyS1,115200n81 ignore_loglevel root=/dev/nfs ip=dhcp";
>> > };
>> >
>> > - reg_1p8v: regulator@0 {
>> > + reg_1p8v: regulator {
>> > compatible = "regulator-fixed";
>> > regulator-name = "fixed-1.8V";
>> > regulator-min-microvolt = <1800000>;
>> > @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@
>> > regulator-boot-on;
>> > };
>> >
>> > - reg_3p3v: regulator@1 {
>> > + reg_3p3v: regulator {
>> > compatible = "regulator-fixed";
>> > regulator-name = "fixed-3.3V";
>> > regulator-min-microvolt = <3300000>;
>>
>> Now there are two "regulator" nodes.
>>
>> Dtc will not complain, but will assume the second contains overrides for
>> first. "vddvario-supply" and "vdd33a-supply" of node "lan9220@20000000"
>> will both the point to the same node, and the network may not work.
>>
>> You can see this yourself running
>>
>> dtc -I dtb -O dts arch/arm/boot/dts/emev2-kzm9d.dtb
>
> What should we call the nodes?
"regulator0" and "regulator1"?
"regulator1v8" and "regulator3v3"?
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/regulator.txt doesn't mention
node names or (presence/lack of) unit-adresses, but the examples do have
unit-addresses.
Is this another case where we don't follow the "no reg, no unit-address"
ePAPR rule?
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread* Re: regulator node names and unit-addresses? (Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] ARM: shmobile: kzm9d: Remove spurio
2014-09-24 7:02 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
(?)
@ 2014-09-24 8:14 ` Mark Brown
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Mark Brown @ 2014-09-24 8:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 858 bytes --]
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 09:02:23AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 3:13 AM, Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au> wrote:
> > What should we call the nodes?
> "regulator0" and "regulator1"?
> "regulator1v8" and "regulator3v3"?
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/regulator.txt doesn't mention
> node names or (presence/lack of) unit-adresses, but the examples do have
> unit-addresses.
> 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.
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* regulator node names and unit-addresses? (Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] ARM: shmobile: kzm9d: Remove spurious regulator base addresses)
@ 2014-09-24 8:14 ` Mark Brown
0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Mark Brown @ 2014-09-24 8:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 09:02:23AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 3:13 AM, Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au> wrote:
> > What should we call the nodes?
> "regulator0" and "regulator1"?
> "regulator1v8" and "regulator3v3"?
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/regulator.txt doesn't mention
> node names or (presence/lack of) unit-adresses, but the examples do have
> unit-addresses.
> 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.
-------------- 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/ab0007ee/attachment.sig>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: regulator node names and unit-addresses? (Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] ARM: shmobile: kzm9d: Remove spurious regulator base addresses)
@ 2014-09-24 8:14 ` Mark Brown
0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Mark Brown @ 2014-09-24 8:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Geert Uytterhoeven
Cc: Simon Horman, Liam Girdwood, Linux-sh list, Ulrich Hecht,
linux-arm-kernel, Magnus Damm, Olof Johansson, devicetree
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 858 bytes --]
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 09:02:23AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 3:13 AM, Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au> wrote:
> > What should we call the nodes?
> "regulator0" and "regulator1"?
> "regulator1v8" and "regulator3v3"?
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/regulator.txt doesn't mention
> node names or (presence/lack of) unit-adresses, but the examples do have
> unit-addresses.
> 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.
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: regulator node names and unit-addresses? (Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] ARM: shmobile: kzm9d: Remove spurio
@ 2014-09-24 8:21 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Geert Uytterhoeven @ 2014-09-24 8:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
Hi Mark,
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 09:02:23AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 3:13 AM, Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au> wrote:
>
>> > What should we call the nodes?
>
>> "regulator0" and "regulator1"?
>> "regulator1v8" and "regulator3v3"?
>
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/regulator.txt doesn't mention
>> node names or (presence/lack of) unit-adresses, but the examples do have
>> unit-addresses.
>
>> 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@0" and "regulator@1"?
Thanks!
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread* regulator node names and unit-addresses? (Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] ARM: shmobile: kzm9d: Remove spurious regulator base addresses)
@ 2014-09-24 8:21 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Geert Uytterhoeven @ 2014-09-24 8:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
Hi Mark,
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 09:02:23AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 3:13 AM, Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au> wrote:
>
>> > What should we call the nodes?
>
>> "regulator0" and "regulator1"?
>> "regulator1v8" and "regulator3v3"?
>
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/regulator.txt doesn't mention
>> node names or (presence/lack of) unit-adresses, but the examples do have
>> unit-addresses.
>
>> 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread* Re: regulator node names and unit-addresses? (Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] ARM: shmobile: kzm9d: Remove spurious regulator base addresses)
@ 2014-09-24 8:21 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Geert Uytterhoeven @ 2014-09-24 8:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Brown
Cc: Simon Horman, Liam Girdwood, Linux-sh list, Ulrich Hecht,
linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r, Magnus Damm,
Olof Johansson, devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA
Hi Mark,
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Mark Brown <broonie-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 09:02:23AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 3:13 AM, Simon Horman <horms-/R6kz+dDXgpPR4JQBCEnsQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
>> > What should we call the nodes?
>
>> "regulator0" and "regulator1"?
>> "regulator1v8" and "regulator3v3"?
>
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/regulator.txt doesn't mention
>> node names or (presence/lack of) unit-adresses, but the examples do have
>> unit-addresses.
>
>> 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@0" and "regulator@1"?
Thanks!
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert-Td1EMuHUCqxL1ZNQvxDV9g@public.gmane.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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread* Re: regulator node names and unit-addresses? (Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] ARM: shmobile: kzm9d: Remove spurio
2014-09-24 8:21 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
(?)
@ 2014-09-24 8:27 ` Mark Brown
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Mark Brown @ 2014-09-24 8:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 677 bytes --]
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:21:12AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> 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.
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* regulator node names and unit-addresses? (Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] ARM: shmobile: kzm9d: Remove spurious regulator base addresses)
@ 2014-09-24 8:27 ` Mark Brown
0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Mark Brown @ 2014-09-24 8:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:21:12AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> 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: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20140924/e49d3b74/attachment.sig>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: regulator node names and unit-addresses? (Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] ARM: shmobile: kzm9d: Remove spurious regulator base addresses)
@ 2014-09-24 8:27 ` Mark Brown
0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Mark Brown @ 2014-09-24 8:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Geert Uytterhoeven
Cc: devicetree, Linux-sh list, Magnus Damm, Liam Girdwood,
Olof Johansson, Simon Horman, Ulrich Hecht, linux-arm-kernel
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 677 bytes --]
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:21:12AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> 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.
[-- Attachment #1.2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 176 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: regulator node names and unit-addresses? (Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] ARM: shmobile: kzm9d: Remove spurio
2014-09-24 8:27 ` Mark Brown
(?)
@ 2014-09-25 1:24 ` Simon Horman
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Simon Horman @ 2014-09-25 1:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
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 <broonie@kernel.org> 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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* regulator node names and unit-addresses? (Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] ARM: shmobile: kzm9d: Remove spurious regulator base addresses)
@ 2014-09-25 1:24 ` Simon Horman
0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Simon Horman @ 2014-09-25 1:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
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 <broonie@kernel.org> 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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: regulator node names and unit-addresses? (Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] ARM: shmobile: kzm9d: Remove spurious regulator base addresses)
@ 2014-09-25 1:24 ` Simon Horman
0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Simon Horman @ 2014-09-25 1:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Brown
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven, Liam Girdwood, Linux-sh list, Ulrich Hecht,
linux-arm-kernel, Magnus Damm, Olof Johansson, devicetree
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 <broonie@kernel.org> 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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2014-09-25 1:24 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2014-09-24 7:02 regulator node names and unit-addresses? (Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] ARM: shmobile: kzm9d: Remove spurious r Geert Uytterhoeven
2014-09-24 7:02 ` regulator node names and unit-addresses? (Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] ARM: shmobile: kzm9d: Remove spurious regulator base addresses) Geert Uytterhoeven
2014-09-24 7:02 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2014-09-24 8:14 ` regulator node names and unit-addresses? (Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] ARM: shmobile: kzm9d: Remove spurio Mark Brown
2014-09-24 8:14 ` regulator node names and unit-addresses? (Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] ARM: shmobile: kzm9d: Remove spurious regulator base addresses) Mark Brown
2014-09-24 8:14 ` Mark Brown
2014-09-24 8:21 ` regulator node names and unit-addresses? (Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] ARM: shmobile: kzm9d: Remove spurio Geert Uytterhoeven
2014-09-24 8:21 ` regulator node names and unit-addresses? (Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] ARM: shmobile: kzm9d: Remove spurious regulator base addresses) Geert Uytterhoeven
2014-09-24 8:21 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2014-09-24 8:27 ` regulator node names and unit-addresses? (Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] ARM: shmobile: kzm9d: Remove spurio Mark Brown
2014-09-24 8:27 ` regulator node names and unit-addresses? (Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] ARM: shmobile: kzm9d: Remove spurious regulator base addresses) Mark Brown
2014-09-24 8:27 ` Mark Brown
2014-09-25 1:24 ` regulator node names and unit-addresses? (Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] ARM: shmobile: kzm9d: Remove spurio Simon Horman
2014-09-25 1:24 ` regulator node names and unit-addresses? (Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] ARM: shmobile: kzm9d: Remove spurious regulator base addresses) Simon Horman
2014-09-25 1:24 ` Simon Horman
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.