[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140519183749.170aada2@avionic-0020>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 18:37:49 +0200
From: Alban Bedel <alban.bedel@...onic-design.de>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: core: Fix the init of DT defined fixed
regulators
On Mon, 19 May 2014 17:18:38 +0100
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 05:25:56PM +0200, Alban Bedel wrote:
>
> > Would checking that the regulator is at the voltage declared in the DT
> > better? Or should I just add a pseudo set method to the regulator driver
> > that only accept the current voltage? That could also be implemented at
> > the core level using a default method for all regulators that have a get
> > but no set method.
>
> We already have code in the core to accept set_voltage() on fixed
> voltage regulators - are you sure you're working with current code?
> Otherwise fixing things to go through the standard set_voltage() path
> would be OK. There should be no need to add a dummy function for
> setting.
The regulator_set_voltage() function do have code to handle such
read-only regulators. However the regulator init directly call the low
level function _regulator_do_set_voltage() which just error out when no
set method is available, hence my original patch.
Unless there is some better proposal, or objections, I'll submit a new
patch tomorrow to call _regulator_do_set_voltage() only if the current
voltage isn't correct.
Alban
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists