[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-id: <4F227530.3050708@samsung.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 10:58:08 +0100
From: Karol Lewandowski <k.lewandowsk@...sung.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc: Thomas Abraham <thomas.abraham@...aro.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rpurdie@...ys.net,
rob.herring@...xeda.com, grant.likely@...retlab.ca,
kgene.kim@...sung.com, myungjoo.ham@...sung.com,
kyungmin.park@...sung.com, dg77.kim@...sung.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...com>,
Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] regulator: add device tree support for max8997
>> On 25.01.2012 12:22, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> The big problem there seems like specifying voltages in the first
>>> place, if we know what device it is we should already know what's
>>> going on.
>
>> Driver which handles said regulator might know what's going on, but
>> that might not be case for its consumers. Should we limit ability to
>> query given parameter just because its value is hardcoded in hardware?
>
> I'm sorry, this makes no sense. Setting a value in the constraints is
> not going to have any impact on the value reported by the driver, it
> never has.
... with the exception of fixed regulator, that is. This is from where I
got my flawed understanding.
Looking at other drivers I see that's indeed special case not practiced
elsewhere.
Thanks for explaining this.
Regards,
--
Karol Lewandowski | Samsung Poland R&D Center | Linux/Platform
--
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