[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121214024626.GA4478@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 11:46:28 +0900
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
arnd@...db.de, linus.walleij@...ricsson.com, ulf.hansson@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/12] regulator: gpio-regulator: Only read GPIO
[dis|en]able pin if not always-on
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:48:18AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2012, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 08:55:51AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > If a regulator is specified as always-on, then it can't have an
> > > enable/disable pin, as it can't be turned off.
> > Sometimes always on gets set for regulators which do have a physical
> > control wired up - the control might exist for use in suspend mode for
> > example. Is the ability to specify an enable pin causing a practical
> > problem for systems? If it is we should fix that.
> My logic is that there is no point in requesting a pin which can
> disable a regulator that can't be disabled. Then we can follow
> on from that logic and say that if a regulator is _not_ always on
> this we _require_ a way to disable it, thus we insist on an enable
> GPIO pin.
> With me?
No. Making the enable pin optional for always on regulators is fine,
forbidding it is not - that won't work for things like the suspend case
I mentioned.
--
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