Re: [PATCH 01/13] OMAP: Introduce a user list for each voltage domain instance in the voltage driver.

[Liam Girdwood <lrg@slimlogic.co.uk>]

On Mon, 2010-09-06 at 22:59 +0300, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 08:20:52PM +0200, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 11:00:31AM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> > > Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> writes:
> > 
> > > > The only thing I can think you might need to do if this is just straight
> > > > voltage setting is re-add support for multiple consumers setting
> > > > voltages simultaneously 
> > 
> > > Yeah, that sounds like what we need.
> > 
> > > re-add? was it there at one point and removed?  Any pointers to the old
> > > code?
> > 
> > It was present in the pre-merge regulator API which you can find in the
> > bowels of:
> > 
> >    git://opensource.wolfsonmicro.com/linux-2.6-audioplus
> > 
> > but was removed to simplify review during the merge.  It's fairly simple
> > to do, it's just that there's been no demand.
> > 
> > Essentially all that needs doing is that when regulator_set_voltage() is
> > called instead of merging with the machine constraints and applying the
> > setting immediately we store the constraints that are specified in the
> > consumer then iterate over all enabled consumers applying all the
> > constraints that they've set in addition to those from the machine.
> > This results in a configuration which is the lowest possible voltage
> > which satisfies all the constraints that have been supplied and for
> > supplies with only one consumer it gives the same behaviour as we have
> > currently.
> 
> How about taking Thara's proposal of using priority lists?
> 
> I mean, it could make more sense to keep the constraints into a priority list,
> instead of "iterate over all enabled consumers"?
> 

You've not really explained why you think a priority list makes more
sense in this case ?

Liam
-- 
Freelance Developer, SlimLogic Ltd
ASoC and Voltage Regulator Maintainer.
http://www.slimlogic.co.uk