[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151012140737.GB4238@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 15:07:37 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
kernel@...gutronix.de, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] regulator: core: Propagate voltage changes to supply
regulators
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 01:42:59PM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 06:32:56PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > One change I think we need here is only doing the propagation if either
> > the device lacks a set_voltage() operation (in which case it's just a
> > switch passing through the parent voltage)
> Does the lack of a set_voltage() operation automatically mean it's a
> switch passing through the parent voltage? What if the regulator is a
> fixed regulator and the output can't be controlled because there is only
> one voltage?
Sorry, that was a typo for get_voltage().
> Currently we bail out int regulator_set_voltage() when we do not have a
> set_voltage() or set_voltage_sel() operation. Instead of propagating the
> voltage change up I would keep the current behaviour and implement voltage
> propagation for switches when we need it. Then we could also introduce a
> REGULATOR_IS_SWITCH flag indicating that this is a switch and not a
> fixed voltage regulator.
We already have people who'd like it.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists