[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170704064536.GG3532@vireshk-i7>
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 12:15:36 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
"Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <enrico.weigelt@...3.net>,
Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
rnayak@...eaurora.org, Shiraz Hashim <shashim@...eaurora.org>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/5] drivers: Add boot constraints core
On 03-07-17, 16:07, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 03, 2017 at 11:45:52AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > The above regulator-min/max-microvolt values I mentioned were for the regulator
> > device and not what the consumers would request. Yes, DMA will request something
>
> If you're putting the maximum possible range that the physical regulator
> can supply into machine constraints then you really haven't understood
> what machine constraints are at all.
I wasn't referring to the limits of the physical regulators but the min/max that
the consumers can set on a particular platform.
> No, it really shouldn't. Please read what I wrote.
Sorry about that. Understood it now.
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists