[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 00:24:10 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc: Alexandru Stan <amstan@...omium.org>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@...sung.com>,
Seungwon Jeon <tgih.jun@...sung.com>,
Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
Sonny Rao <sonnyrao@...omium.org>,
Andrew Bresticker <abrestic@...omium.org>,
"open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC..." <linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] regulator: core: Support trying to get close to a
certain voltage
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 11:55:55AM -0800, Doug Anderson wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 9:09 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> > Please also bear in mind the need to handle shared supplies in your
> > implementation.
> I'm being dense, can you give more details? Do you want me to grab
> the mutex or do something smarter like track the voltage / tolerance
> requested by multiple clients and resolve them, or ...?
I mean the latter - what happens if more than one consumer is trying to
use the regulator? This is IIRC why _set_voltage_tol() uses the cheap
and nasty implementation it does. There's also the potential
performance considerations for the DVS type applications now I think
about it.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists