All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>
Cc: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Liam Girdwood <lrg@ti.com>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
	Paul Mundt <lethal@linux-sh.org>,
	Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>,
	linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org,
	uclinux-dist-devel@blackfin.uclinux.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: Provide dummy supply support
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 18:27:21 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20111101182720.GH10029@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201111011350.17425.vapier@gentoo.org>

On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 01:50:14PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 28 October 2011 18:47:57 Sascha Hauer wrote:

> > > We already have a dummy regulator driver and a fixed voltage regulator
> > > driver, we shouldn't be adding a third implementation of the same thing.
> > > Just use the fixed voltage regulator for this.

> > I explained in my mail why I think that the current implementation of
> > the dummy regulator is not suitable for things apart from debugging.

> your complaints seem to be specific to how the dummy regulator gets hooked in 
> and not in the specific regulator implementation.  so it seems like the right 
> thing would be to split the kconfig knobs:

Quite.  Sascha, your mail doesn't refer to the implementation of the
regulator itself at all.  Nothing in your changelog even mentions that
you're introducing a new regulator driver.

I think there's a big abstraction understanding failure here, reading
your changelog I'm not sure you understand the existing mechainsms that
are in place.  You say:

| This patch allows a board to register dummy supplies for devices
| which need a regulator but which is not software controllable
| on this board.

but this is exactly the use case the fixed voltage regulator is there
for.

>  config REGULATOR_DUMMY
> -	bool "Provide a dummy regulator if regulator lookups fail"
> +	bool "Provide a dummy regulator"
> +config REGULATOR_DUMMY_FALLBACK
> +	bool "Fallback to dummy regulator if lookup fails"
> +	depends on REGULATOR_DUMMY

As I think I said earlier I'd use the fixed regulator for this, all
Sascha's actually doing here is adding a wrapper to simplify
registration of that.

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>
Cc: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Liam Girdwood <lrg@ti.com>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
	Paul Mundt <lethal@linux-sh.org>,
	Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>,
	linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org,
	uclinux-dist-devel@blackfin.uclinux.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: Provide dummy supply support
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 18:27:21 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20111101182720.GH10029@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201111011350.17425.vapier@gentoo.org>

On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 01:50:14PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 28 October 2011 18:47:57 Sascha Hauer wrote:

> > > We already have a dummy regulator driver and a fixed voltage regulator
> > > driver, we shouldn't be adding a third implementation of the same thing.
> > > Just use the fixed voltage regulator for this.

> > I explained in my mail why I think that the current implementation of
> > the dummy regulator is not suitable for things apart from debugging.

> your complaints seem to be specific to how the dummy regulator gets hooked in 
> and not in the specific regulator implementation.  so it seems like the right 
> thing would be to split the kconfig knobs:

Quite.  Sascha, your mail doesn't refer to the implementation of the
regulator itself at all.  Nothing in your changelog even mentions that
you're introducing a new regulator driver.

I think there's a big abstraction understanding failure here, reading
your changelog I'm not sure you understand the existing mechainsms that
are in place.  You say:

| This patch allows a board to register dummy supplies for devices
| which need a regulator but which is not software controllable
| on this board.

but this is exactly the use case the fixed voltage regulator is there
for.

>  config REGULATOR_DUMMY
> -	bool "Provide a dummy regulator if regulator lookups fail"
> +	bool "Provide a dummy regulator"
> +config REGULATOR_DUMMY_FALLBACK
> +	bool "Fallback to dummy regulator if lookup fails"
> +	depends on REGULATOR_DUMMY

As I think I said earlier I'd use the fixed regulator for this, all
Sascha's actually doing here is adding a wrapper to simplify
registration of that.

  reply	other threads:[~2011-11-01 18:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-10-28 20:26 [PATCH] regulator: provide dummy supply support Sascha Hauer
2011-10-28 20:26 ` Sascha Hauer
2011-10-28 20:26 ` [PATCH] regulator: Provide " Sascha Hauer
2011-10-28 20:26   ` Sascha Hauer
2011-10-28 21:59   ` Mark Brown
2011-10-28 21:59     ` Mark Brown
2011-10-28 22:47     ` Sascha Hauer
2011-10-28 22:47       ` Sascha Hauer
2011-10-28 23:16       ` Mike Frysinger
2011-10-28 23:16         ` Mike Frysinger
2011-10-29 17:42       ` Mark Brown
2011-10-29 17:42         ` Mark Brown
2011-11-01 17:50       ` Mike Frysinger
2011-11-01 17:50         ` Mike Frysinger
2011-11-01 18:27         ` Mark Brown [this message]
2011-11-01 18:27           ` Mark Brown
2011-11-02 10:03           ` Sascha Hauer
2011-11-02 10:03             ` Sascha Hauer
2011-11-02 10:41             ` Mark Brown
2011-11-02 10:41               ` Mark Brown
2011-11-02 14:29               ` Sascha Hauer
2011-11-02 14:29                 ` Sascha Hauer
2011-10-28 21:57 ` [PATCH] regulator: provide " Mark Brown
2011-10-28 21:57   ` Mark Brown
2011-10-28 23:22   ` Mike Frysinger
2011-10-28 23:22     ` Mike Frysinger

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=20111101182720.GH10029@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
    --to=broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
    --cc=lethal@linux-sh.org \
    --cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-omap@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-sh@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lrg@ti.com \
    --cc=s.hauer@pengutronix.de \
    --cc=tony@atomide.com \
    --cc=uclinux-dist-devel@blackfin.uclinux.org \
    --cc=vapier@gentoo.org \
    /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.