[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPDyKFqrPNPrJN=9G7MfA0hVhJMecN0DqbOxqk1J57L819Zm3g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:50:50 +0100
From: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
To: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>,
linux-mmc <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard <plagnioj@...osoft.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
pierre.samat@...el.com
Cc: Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] mmc: sdhci: potentially bad behavior when using vmmc supply
[...]
>>
>> This doesn't seems like a case where a gpio regulator should be used
>> and I am not sure what problem it would solve. Beside to suppress the
>> log warnings (actually those aren't warnings but informations).
>>
>> Isn't sdhci_do_start_signal_voltage_switch() doing what you need here?
>>
>
> It is. I am only wondering the best way to describe the hardware:
> - No regulator but I have the 'no vqmmc regulator not found' message which
> is a bit annoying and which can be interpreted as an issue for someone
> who has no knowledge about this stuff.
Hmm, should we turn them into debug messages? Both regulators are optional.
> - Describe the regulator since there is one on my board. But it is not a
> fixed regulator and even if it's close to a gpio one it is not.
If it's driven by SDHCI internal logic, I would leave it to that.
There are no need to describe it at all.
Kind regards
Uffe
--
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