[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1304886753.3246.22.camel@odin>
Date: Sun, 08 May 2011 21:32:33 +0100
From: Liam Girdwood <lrg@...nel.org>
To: balbi@...com
Cc: Graeme Gregory <gg@...mlogic.co.uk>, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sameo@...ux.intel.com,
broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] MFD: TWL6025: add phoenix lite support to twl6030
On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 13:40 +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 10:39:48AM +0100, Graeme Gregory wrote:
> > + /* TWL6025 LDO regulators */
> > + struct regulator_init_data *ldo1;
> > + struct regulator_init_data *ldo2;
> > + struct regulator_init_data *ldo3;
> > + struct regulator_init_data *ldo4;
> > + struct regulator_init_data *ldo5;
> > + struct regulator_init_data *ldo6;
> > + struct regulator_init_data *ldo7;
> > + struct regulator_init_data *ldoln;
> > + struct regulator_init_data *ldousb;
> > + /* TWL6025 DCDC regulators */
> > + struct regulator_init_data *smps3;
> > + struct regulator_init_data *smps4;
> > + struct regulator_init_data *vio6025;
>
> this is just becoming really really ugly. You need a more clever way of
> handling this. Maybe passing an array of regulators and the array size
> instead of continuously adding fields to this structure.
>
Ok, I agree that optimising the platform data here is desirable, but I
think we will have to stick with this atm as the twl driver has some
rather annoying limitations that make optimising things like this a pita
atm.
I guess we should look at fixing the twl driver within TI in order to
make it more adaptable (i.e. support future twl ICs) and also a non
singleton device.
Liam
--
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