[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150112124537.GH4160@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 12:45:37 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>,
Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
Benoit Parrot <bparrot@...com>,
Pantelis Antoniou <panto@...oniou-consulting.com>,
Jiri Prchal <jiri.prchal@...ignal.cz>,
"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch v2 1/2] gpio: add GPIO hogging mechanism
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 10:40:04AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Maxime Ripard
> > We do have one board where we have a pin (let's say GPIO14 of the bank
> > A) that enables a regulator that will provide VCC the bank B.
> I think it's a hog in this case though, not a GPIO regulator,
> definately not both. But let's check Mark's opinion on this.
I'm lacking some context here but my first thought is that if VCC might
be supplied by some other thing we need to use a regulator since
otherwise we can't substitute in the other regulator.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists