From: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To: David Collins <collinsd@codeaurora.org>
Cc: Liam Girdwood <lrg@slimlogic.co.uk>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-arm-msm-owner@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] regulator: Propagate uA_load requirements up supply chain
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 10:00:20 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110330010016.GB2853@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110329212010.GA30482@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 06:20:10AM +0900, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 09:08:15AM -0700, David Collins wrote:
> > I agree that it would be beneficial to change regulator_dev.supply from
> > type struct regulator_dev * to type struct regulator *. However, I think
> > that going that route will be a major undertaking with a lot of details to
> Hrm, it doesn't look too bad - as far as I can see it should just be
> fairly direct refactorings of each of get, put, enable and disable?
I had a look at this, it all looks very straightforward apart from get
where we need to either do a dance to set up a supply mapping or
restructure to expose the core get operation internally without map
lookups (the latter I think) and that doesn't seem terribly invasive.
I may actually try coding it up next time I'm sitting in front of an
appropriate test system.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com (Mark Brown)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 2/2] regulator: Propagate uA_load requirements up supply chain
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 10:00:20 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110330010016.GB2853@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110329212010.GA30482@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 06:20:10AM +0900, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 09:08:15AM -0700, David Collins wrote:
> > I agree that it would be beneficial to change regulator_dev.supply from
> > type struct regulator_dev * to type struct regulator *. However, I think
> > that going that route will be a major undertaking with a lot of details to
> Hrm, it doesn't look too bad - as far as I can see it should just be
> fairly direct refactorings of each of get, put, enable and disable?
I had a look at this, it all looks very straightforward apart from get
where we need to either do a dance to set up a supply mapping or
restructure to expose the core get operation internally without map
lookups (the latter I think) and that doesn't seem terribly invasive.
I may actually try coding it up next time I'm sitting in front of an
appropriate test system.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-03-30 1:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-03-28 15:34 [PATCH 0/2] regulator: Fix regulator_enable deadlock and add uA_load propagation David Collins
2011-03-28 15:34 ` David Collins
2011-03-28 15:34 ` [PATCH 1/2] regulator: Remove possible deadlock from regulator_enable David Collins
2011-03-28 15:34 ` David Collins
2011-03-28 18:11 ` Mark Brown
2011-03-28 18:11 ` Mark Brown
2011-03-28 18:22 ` David Collins
2011-03-28 18:22 ` David Collins
2011-03-28 15:34 ` [PATCH 2/2] regulator: Propagate uA_load requirements up supply chain David Collins
2011-03-28 15:34 ` David Collins
2011-03-28 18:02 ` Mark Brown
2011-03-28 18:02 ` Mark Brown
2011-03-28 18:14 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-03-28 18:14 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-03-29 7:53 ` Mark Brown
2011-03-29 7:53 ` Mark Brown
2011-03-29 8:28 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-03-29 8:28 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-03-29 8:40 ` Mark Brown
2011-03-29 8:40 ` Mark Brown
2011-03-28 18:18 ` David Collins
2011-03-28 18:18 ` David Collins
2011-03-28 18:33 ` broonie@gmail.com
2011-03-28 18:33 ` broonie@gmail.com
2011-03-28 23:52 ` [PATCH v2 0/2] regulator: Fix regulator_enable deadlock and add uA_load propagation David Collins
2011-03-28 23:52 ` David Collins
2011-03-28 23:53 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] regulator: Remove possible deadlock from regulator_enable David Collins
2011-03-28 23:53 ` David Collins
2011-03-28 23:53 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] regulator: Propagate uA_load requirements up supply chain David Collins
2011-03-28 23:53 ` David Collins
2011-03-29 8:44 ` Mark Brown
2011-03-29 8:44 ` Mark Brown
2011-03-29 16:08 ` David Collins
2011-03-29 16:08 ` David Collins
2011-03-29 21:20 ` Mark Brown
2011-03-29 21:20 ` Mark Brown
2011-03-30 1:00 ` Mark Brown [this message]
2011-03-30 1:00 ` Mark Brown
2011-03-29 22:40 ` Mark Brown
2011-03-29 22:40 ` Mark Brown
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20110330010016.GB2853@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
--to=broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
--cc=collinsd@codeaurora.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-arm-msm-owner@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lrg@slimlogic.co.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.