[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111019144734.GI18713@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 15:47:34 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...escale.com>
Cc: patches@...aro.org, tony@...mide.com,
devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org,
Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
grant.likely@...retlab.ca, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, lrg@...com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] regulator: helper routine to extract
regulator_init_data
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 01:33:55PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 05:00:46PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > It's not just Linux-specific stuff, some of this is even specific to
> > what current Linux drivers can do - updating the kernel could mean a
> > different set of constraints.
> Well, from what I see, the 'struct regulation_constraints' is defined
> in machine.h and meant to be the regulator machine/board interface.
...which will depend on the system integrator's understanding of what
their system is capable of right now.
> With the example I'm looking at, mc13892, the regulation_constraints
> configuration is fully passed from machine/board file. If there is
> something specific to what drivers can do, it probably should be encoded
> in regulator driver rather than staying in regulation_constraints.
I don't think you're quite understanding the issue - it's an integration
problem with three different variables. It's a combination of what the
chips can do, what the drivers can do and if the board design affects
any of this stuff. Only the board can come to a final decision.
--
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