[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120731091618.GB15557@avionic-0098.adnet.avionic-design.de>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 11:16:18 +0200
From: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...onic-design.de>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc: Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>,
Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@...dia.com>,
Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>,
Simon Glass <sjg@...omium.org>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v3 1/3] runtime interpreted power sequences
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 04:47:06PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 10:44:29AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On 07/27/2012 07:05 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>
> > > + power-on-sequence {
> > > + regulator@0 {
> > > + id = "power";
> > > + enable;
>
> > What do this mean? Isn't this implied for a regulator?
>
> I assume you might have some sequences which need some things to be
> turned off for some reason; it at least seems to be something you'd want
> to design for.
Furthermore there is the power-off-sequence equivalent, which you use
for instance when you turn off the panel. Typically they would do the
inverse of the power-on-sequence, so turning off a regulator is
definitiely required.
Thierry
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists