On 22-11-16, 18:41, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 09:19:22AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > "How do we know (from the DT) the order in which entries for multiple > > regulators > > are present in the OPP table?" > > > > And I am not sure if we can do that without having a property like: > > > > + supply-names = "vcc0", "vcc1", "vcc2"; > > > > in the OPP table or the consumer device. And surely it isn't a clean enough > > solution and that's why this series relied on the code to get such details. > > > > Does someone have an alternative? If NO, can we go ahead with this series > > as is? > > I'm really not at all clear why this has to be in DT. My understanding > was that this is basically a helper library for more specific bindings > which already have to hard code things like sequencing so surely they'd > be specifying the ordering to be used when supplying data?
I am a bit confused and perhaps I am misreading your feedback. Are you saying that: "we don't need to identify which microVolts value in the OPP table corresponds to which supply from the DT itself and we can do that with some hard coded stuff" ? If yes, then below is from an earlier email from you, which I feel is opposite of what you are suggesting now. On 09-11-16, 14:58, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 12:02:56PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > The platform driver is responsible to identify the order and pass it on to > > the > > OPP core. And the platform driver needs to have that hard coded. > > That *really* should be in the binding. Honestly if the binding is this > vague I'm not even clear that it's worth documenting these properties at > this level, might be better to just put the documentation in the > platform driver bindings. -- viresh
