[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAD7vxxKTk2Na9B4ae6EGT8HaKDRp0iu4zX1tB8DPtmePKbHrLw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2014 10:11:30 -0700
From: Tim Kryger <tim.kryger@...il.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier.martinez@...labora.co.uk>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
Chris Ball <chris@...ntf.net>,
Seungwon Jeon <tgih.jun@...sung.com>,
Haijun Zhang <Haijun.Zhang@...escale.com>,
Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
Yuvaraj Kumar C D <yuvaraj.cd@...il.com>,
linux-samsung-soc <linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mmc <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] mmc: core: Use regulator_get_voltage() if OCR mask is empty.
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 07:19:41AM -0700, Tim Kryger wrote:
>
>> That is a little different from my suggestion where the constraints
>> check is skipped when the regulator output is fixed. It effectively
>> does this now when the regulator itself provides the fixed voltage.
>> However, the checks aren't skipped when that fixed voltage is coming
>> from an ancestor. Why the difference?
>
> Nobody has written suitable code, and please bear in mind that even if
> the code is written there will probably be cases where it's too
> expensive for whatever reason so Javier's change is going to be needed.
I fail to see how replicating similar logic at all current
regulator_list_voltage call sites would be any more efficient than
handling this directly in regulator core.
--
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