[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160331174741.GO2350@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 10:47:41 -0700
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>
Cc: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn@...o.se>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...ymobile.com>,
Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Gandhar Dighe <gdighe@...dia.com>,
Stuart Yates <syates@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: DT: Add support to scale ramp delay based
on platform behavior
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 10:43:03PM +0530, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
> We need two properties, one what we measured in platform and second one for
> what we want to program PMIC. This is for the case where vendor advertised
> ramp delay is not same as measured due to platform design.
What makes you say that we need two properties?
> Based on discussion, regulator-ramp-delay is for measured ramp delay in
> platform. So we will need another property for configuring PMIC.
So as well as delaying in the kernel to cover the ramp time you want to
configure something in the PMIC? What are you trying to configure in
the PMIC? How will the PMIC driver meaningfully interpret a generic
property given that the whole point here is that the PMIC is unable to
deliver in spec behaviour?
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists