[PATCH 1/3] ARM: dt: tegra: seaboard: add regulators
Laxman Dewangan
ldewangan at nvidia.com
Tue Jul 10 07:59:06 EDT 2012
Hi Mark,
I require your input on supporting the vin-supply for tps6586x.
On Tuesday 26 June 2012 04:39 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 06/25/2012 04:26 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
>>
>> More specifically, all the supplies for a device (including those
>> that happen to be inputs for regulators) should be specified in
>> exactly the same fashion. This makes the binding more regular and
>> means that users can just go through the schematic adding the
>> mappings without worrying about what what the supply happens to
>> be.
> Just making sure I parsed that right. I think what you're saying is
> that the device itself should represent its input pins, e.g.:
>
> tps6586x {
> vin-ldo01-supply =<&some_regulator>;
> vin-ldo23-supply =<...>;
> vin-ldo4-supply =<...>;
> vin-ldo678-supply =<...>;
> vin-ldo9-supply =<...>;
> :::::::::::
> };
Looked tps6586x-regulator driver and it has the platform data which is
regulator_init_data.
So for adding the vin-supply similar to what we have in fixed or
tps6591x regulator to pass through the desc.supply_name, we are not
having option here in platform data which can work for DT and non-DT case.
So if still want to have the DT and non-DT case similar, we can add one
tps6586x_regulator_platform_data as
struct tps6586x_regulator_platform_data
{
const char *input_supply;
struct regulator_init_data *reg_init_data;
}
and then pass this when registering the regulator.
Or,
second option is to support the input supply name for DT case through
desc.supply_name and for non-DT let it be there through regulator_init_data.
Please let me know your opinion.
Thanks,
Laxman
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list