[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160205143328.GD31506@lukather>
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2016 15:33:28 +0100
From: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] regulator: Add coupled regulator
Hi Mark,
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 04:28:02PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 04:46:49PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>
> > I guess a separate driver would make it easier to deal with cases like
> > the one you suggested (shutting down when the load is going to be
> > lower). I don't see how we could have a good DT representation of that
> > if we're going to use lists.
>
> We can have a driver regardless of what the DT looks like, it's a
> question of how things get instantiated.
>
> > Anyway, I'm fine with both approaches, just let me know what you
> > prefer.
>
> Without seeing an implementation of the lists it's hard to say.
Just to make sure we're on the same page: you want to keep the
regulator, but instead of giving the parent through vinX-supplies
properties, you want to have a single *-supply property, with a list
of regulators, right?
Thanks!
Maxime
--
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists