[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110330010016.GB2853@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 10:00:20 +0900
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To: David Collins <collinsd@...eaurora.org>
Cc: Liam Girdwood <lrg@...mlogic.co.uk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-arm-msm-owner@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] regulator: Propagate uA_load requirements up
supply chain
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 06:20:10AM +0900, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 09:08:15AM -0700, David Collins wrote:
> > I agree that it would be beneficial to change regulator_dev.supply from
> > type struct regulator_dev * to type struct regulator *. However, I think
> > that going that route will be a major undertaking with a lot of details to
> Hrm, it doesn't look too bad - as far as I can see it should just be
> fairly direct refactorings of each of get, put, enable and disable?
I had a look at this, it all looks very straightforward apart from get
where we need to either do a dance to set up a supply mapping or
restructure to expose the core get operation internally without map
lookups (the latter I think) and that doesn't seem terribly invasive.
I may actually try coding it up next time I'm sitting in front of an
appropriate test system.
--
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