Device tree review #2

[Simon Arlott]

On Thu, June 21, 2012 08:00, Stephen Warren wrote:
> 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.

That's a valid point... at first I was going to use the "supply" pointer
but that didn't provide the reference I needed. I'll remove the registration
of that regulator device.

-- 
Simon Arlott