[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210825144133.GH5186@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2021 15:41:33 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
Mark Gross <mgross@...ux.intel.com>,
Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@...il.com>,
Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham@...asonboard.com>,
sailues@...dragon.ideasonboard.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/3] regulator: core: Add regulator_lookup_list
On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 04:59:35PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> From a camera sensor point of view, we want to avoid code duplication.
> Having to look for regulators using OF lookups *and* platform data in
> every single sensor driver is not a good solution. This means that, from
> a camera sensor driver point of view, we want to call regulator_get()
> (or the devm_ version) with a name, without caring about who establishes
> the mapping and how the lookup is performed. I don't care much
> personally if this would be implemented through swnode or a different
> mechanism, as long as the implementation can be centralized.
That's all orthogonal to this discussion, it's about how we configure
the regulators not how clients use the regulators - as you say anything
to do with how the regulator is configured should be totally transparent
there.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists