[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <490204A3.6010505@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 18:23:47 +0100
From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...il.com>
To: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@....ac.uk>
CC: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
eric miao <eric.y.miao@...il.com>,
Liam Girdwood <lg@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Subject: Re: Da903x regulator driver. Bug?
Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> Firstly, is lkml the right place to ask questions about regulator drivers?
>
> Secondly, though I can't track down any examples, I'm guessing the following
> is a valid board config for the da903x reg etc.
>
> static struct regulator_init_data stargate2_ld8_init_data = {
> .supply_regulator_dev = NULL,
> .constraints = {
> .name = "vdd_mica",
> .min_uV = 1800000,
> .max_uV = 1900000,
> .valid_modes_mask = REGULATOR_CHANGE_VOLTAGE,
> },
> };
>
> /* playing with this ld0 as it only goes to an external connector */
> static struct da903x_subdev_info stargate2_da9030_subdevs[] = {
> {
> .name = "da903x-regulator",
> .id = DA9030_ID_LDO8,
> .platform_data = &stargate2_ld8_init_data,
> },
> };
>
> static struct da903x_platform_data stargate2_da9030_pdata = {
> .num_subdevs = ARRAY_SIZE(stargate2_da9030_subdevs),
> .subdevs = stargate2_da9030_subdevs,
> };
> static struct i2c_board_info __initdata stargate2_pwr_i2c_board_info [] = {
> {
> .type = "da9030",
> .addr = 0x49,
> .platform_data = &stargate2_da9030_pdata,
> .irq = gpio_to_irq(1),
> },
> };
>
> // and relevant registration code.
>
>
> Now if this is now things are expected to be, there is a bug in
> regulators/da903x.c in da903x_regulator_probe
>
> rdev = regulator_register(&ri->desc, pdev->dev.parent, ri);
>
> should be
>
> rdev = regulator_register(&ri->desc, &pdev->dev, ri);
>
>
Unfortunately this fix causes other issues as now the i2c_client
is 2 layers down rather than one requiring quite a few changes
to
struct device *da9034_dev = rdev_get_dev(rdev)->parent->parent;
from
struct device *da9034_dev = rdev_get_dev(rdev)->parent;
So either a change to the regulator framework is needed to
allow mfd's or these extra ->parent lines need to go in in lots
of places.
Which do people prefer?
Jonathan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists