Device tree review #2

[Stephen Warren]

On 06/21/2012 12:34 AM, Simon Arlott wrote:
> On 21/06/12 02:43, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 06/20/2012 02:24 PM, Simon Arlott wrote:
>>> On 20/06/12 04:48, Stephen Warren wrote:
...
>>>>> 		broadcom,vc-mailbox = <&vc_mbox>;
>>>>> 		broadcom,vc-channel = <0>;
>>>>>
>>>>> 		regulator-name = "VideoCore";
>>>>> 		regulator-min-microvolt = <5000000>;
>>>>> 		regulator-max-microvolt = <5000000>;
>>>>> 		regulator-always-on = <1>;
>>>>
>>>> It's not clear to me why one regulator is defined at the "top" level
>>>> directly as part of the power manager device, whereas the other two are
>>>> defined as child nodes; I would expect to see all 3 regulators defined
>>>> as child nodes.
>>>
>>> I need a parent device as there's currently only a single bit map for
>>> all powered devices, which the child regulators need to share.
>>
>> You can still have a parent device that exists solely to host 3
>> regulator child devices, rather than having the top-level node be one of
>> the regulators, with (a presumably arbitrarily selected) couple of child
>> nodes.
> 
> It's not arbitrary, the top one doesn't control anything.

Oh, then you can delete all the regulator-* properties from the
top-level container node then (the ones quoted above), since presumably
they're not used at all.