[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4DB94A70.3060009@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 14:07:28 +0300
From: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ia.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
CC: kalle.jokiniemi@...ia.com, lrg@...mlogic.co.uk,
mchehab@...radead.org, svarbatov@...sol.com, saaguirre@...com,
grosikopulos@...sol.com, vimarsh.zutshi@...ia.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] Regulator state after regulator_get
Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 01:27:46PM +0300, Sakari Ailus wrote:
>> Mark Brown wrote:
>
>>> I'm not sure what "supply_nasty" would mean? This also doesn't seem
>>> like something that we can set up per supply - it's going to affect the
>>> whole regulator state, it's not something that only affects a single
>>> supply.
>
>> supply_nasty() would be used to define a regulator which is enabled by
>> the boot loader when it shouldn't be, which is the actual problem.
>
> That's *really* not a clear name.
I agree. It was just meant to imply that there's something wrong in the
way it behaves. :-)
>> How should this regulator be turned off in the boot by the kernel?
>
> Have you read my previous mail where I described the existing support
> for doing this when we have a full set of information on the regualtors
> in the systems?
Yes, I did read it but I first understood that this use case wasn't
supported right now. Having read it again, that's clearly the way to go
with fixing this. Thanks.
Regards,
--
Sakari Ailus
sakari.ailus@...well.research.nokia.com
--
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