[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151223004602.GN16023@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2015 00:46:02 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: chenfeng <puck.chen@...ilicon.com>
Cc: lee.jones@...aro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
lgirdwood@...il.com, robh+dt@...nel.org, pawel.moll@....com,
mark.rutland@....com, ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk,
galak@...eaurora.org, xuwei5@...ilicon.com, puck.chen@...yun.com,
yudongbin@...ilicon.com, saberlily.xia@...ilicon.com,
suzhuangluan@...ilicon.com, kong.kongxinwei@...ilicon.com,
xuyiping@...ilicon.com, z.liuxinliang@...ilicon.com,
weidong2@...ilicon.com, w.f@...wei.com, qijiwen@...ilicon.com,
peter.panshilin@...ilicon.com, dan.zhao@...ilicon.com,
linuxarm@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] hisilicon/dts: Add hi655x pmic dts node
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 02:20:16PM +0800, chenfeng wrote:
Please fix your mail client to word wrap within paragraphs at something
substantially less than 80 columns. Doing this makes your messages much
easier to read and reply to.
> While doing this in driver code, I found that it seems all the vendor
> chip have the voltage table. So I am wondering can we add this into
> the regulator framework.
> We can add in the function of_get_regulation_constraints to get the
> vset table.
> I am not sure this is right or not.
I'm just not convinced it's a good pattern to move this data out to DT,
like I said in my other mail it's making the ABI bigger and I'm not sure
I see much upside over putting the data in a table in DT rather than in
C code. It's more parsing code and more things we really shouldn't
change in future.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists