Re: [PATCH] regulator: core: use correct device for device supplylookup

[Mark Brown]

On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 12:33:32AM +0530, Laxman Dewangan wrote:

> My board dts file is
>       pmu: tps65910@d2 {
>                 compatible = "ti,tps65910";
>                 reg = <0xd2>;
>                 interrupt-parent = <&intc>;
>                 interrupts = < 0 118 0x04 >;
> 
>                 #gpio-cells = <2>;
>                 gpio-controller;
> 
>                 #interrupt-cells = <2>;
>                 interrupt-controller;
> 
>                 regulators {
>                         vdd1_reg: vdd1 {
>                                 regulator-min-microvolt = < 600000>;
>                                 regulator-max-microvolt = <1500000>;
>                                 regulator-always-on;
>                                 regulator-boot-on;
>                                 ti,regulator-ext-sleep-control = <0>;
>                         };
>                         vdd2_reg: vdd2 {
>                                 regulator-min-microvolt = < 600000>;
>                                 regulator-max-microvolt = <1500000>;
>                                 regulator-always-on;
>                                 regulator-boot-on;
>                                 ti,regulator-ext-sleep-control = <4>;
>                         };
>             };
>     };

Supplies aren't specified for any of the regulators here...

> So currently, when regulator_register gets called in
> tps65910-regulator.c, it sets the
> config.dev = tps65910->dev;
> config.of_node as
>                 config.of_node =
> of_find_node_by_name(tps65910->dev->of_node,
>                                                         info->name);
> So here config.of_node always shows NULL as the in
> tps65910->dev->of_node does not have name same as info->name ie.
> regulator name like vdd1, vdd2.

Of course, this is just like any other supply - since you've not
specified a mapping for it of course the framework isn't able to look it
up.

> >If there is a change needed in the core you need to explain what you
> >believe that change will do.

> I though this is straight but seems it is becoming more complex now.
> I will describe all this details if we agree to change require.

I still don't see any change needed here, from the above it simply looks
like the supplies aren't set up.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature