From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1751607AbbKJTkx (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 10 Nov 2015 14:40:53 -0500
Received: from comal.ext.ti.com ([198.47.26.152]:60424 "EHLO comal.ext.ti.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1750893AbbKJTkv (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 10 Nov 2015 14:40:51 -0500
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/5] regulator: tps65912: Add regulator driver for the
 TPS65912 PMIC
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
References: <20151105101417.GM1717@sirena.org.uk> <563B9A10.4020907@ti.com>
 <20151106104322.GA18409@sirena.org.uk> <563CED25.6020405@ti.com>
 <20151106211651.GJ18409@sirena.org.uk> <5640DAC0.9080008@ti.com>
 <20151110095719.GC12392@sirena.org.uk> <56421FA5.1020103@ti.com>
 <20151110170447.GI12392@sirena.org.uk> <56422ECC.6070603@ti.com>
 <20151110184408.GJ12392@sirena.org.uk>
CC: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>, Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@arm.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk>,
        Kumar Gala <galak@codeaurora.org>, Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>,
        Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@gmail.com>,
        Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com>,
        <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
From: "Andrew F. Davis" <afd@ti.com>
Message-ID: <56424836.7000608@ti.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 13:40:38 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20151110184408.GJ12392@sirena.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 11/10/2015 12:44 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 11:52:12AM -0600, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
>
>> Anyway, All I'm trying to do here is keep things clean in the DT. We only have
>> one consistent option:
>
> No, not really.
>
>> Match all sub parts by compatible:
>
>> Or we end up with some hybrid approach, matching some on node name, others
>> on compatible when needed. Yes, the above matches Linux device model (still
>> not sure why that is such a problem?), but it also matches modular functionality
>> in the device.
>
> There's also the third option where we don't have any compatible strings
> in the subnodes at all.
>

Ok, two, but would you really want to go that way? Matching by node name costs
us all of the flexibility of DT sub-device selection. Still don't see an upside
as we would now be locked to node names instead of compatible strings to declare
component type compatibility (what they are for).