From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Brown Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] regulator: add device tree support for max8997 Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 16:17:44 +0000 Message-ID: <20120126161744.GB19703@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> References: <1326353738-26864-1-git-send-email-thomas.abraham@linaro.org> <1326353738-26864-3-git-send-email-thomas.abraham@linaro.org> <4F1FD1A5.1060305@samsung.com> <20120125112602.GB2991@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <4F1FEF55.8030604@samsung.com> <20120125133254.GJ3687@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <4F217100.6020105@samsung.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="6sX45UoQRIJXqkqR" Return-path: Received: from opensource.wolfsonmicro.com ([80.75.67.52]:41089 "EHLO opensource.wolfsonmicro.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752358Ab2AZQRr (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Jan 2012 11:17:47 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4F217100.6020105@samsung.com> Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org To: Karol Lewandowski Cc: Thomas Abraham , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rpurdie@rpsys.net, rob.herring@calxeda.com, grant.likely@secretlab.ca, kgene.kim@samsung.com, myungjoo.ham@samsung.com, kyungmin.park@samsung.com, dg77.kim@samsung.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, Rajendra Nayak , Sylwester Nawrocki --6sX45UoQRIJXqkqR Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 04:28:00PM +0100, Karol Lewandowski wrote: > On 25.01.2012 14:32, Mark Brown wrote: > >Well, they're different things. Device tree isn't Linux specific at > >all. > There is no official platform-agnostic regulator API, nor DT-bindings > document I'm aware of. Thus, I don't see why, while transitioning to The binding for the regulator API is supposed to be the one true platform agnostic binding, none of the device tree stuff is supposed to be Linux specific. > DT, should we lose ability to describe certain hardware configurations. We don't loose anything, a single voltage constraint that didn't set apply_uV was always meaningless. I keep meaning to make the core complain about things like that and people specifying voltage ranges without SET_VOLTAGE. > On 25.01.2012 12:22, Mark Brown wrote: > > The big problem there seems like specifying voltages in the first > > place, if we know what device it is we should already know what's > > going on. > Driver which handles said regulator might know what's going on, but > that might not be case for its consumers. Should we limit ability to > query given parameter just because its value is hardcoded in hardware? I'm sorry, this makes no sense. Setting a value in the constraints is not going to have any impact on the value reported by the driver, it never has. > Consequently, if it's property of hardware that it provides fixed > voltage somewhere shouldn't it be possible to describe this fact > in DT? If the device has a fixed voltage output the driver should just know this without having to read the information from device tree, device tree is for configuration. If the device has some hardware fixed configurability it should define this in a sensible fashion in the bindings (which may for example be a case of specifying the values of the passive components for ease of use). --6sX45UoQRIJXqkqR Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJPIXyhAAoJEBus8iNuMP3d38wP/3jUE+mCpEE+txlP06zNwDRb lg0DZnvNhH3UkcCrnDTwWDp2T1TW6vDr6PcA/iELuvXutyeC3eYCQgIu/LhIkcYt Qc6yJjSpFQho44/QUzKX5kPXgVlfoz90M1mKcwlMw0vw6Jbqt1b6uufcTJSz341n TVu43IMSl1WElBQkUEI8t/xUomF6bM2KTnx+7+32xUXRcFMh+kZZk7eLTcgJObl2 n07q00MLu5IMJoa7D6FG9/t+YPZdHAkNzcJwIFvKnkMhnf590Dm9bi3aPdfoQbAC iTXx70R2lGOf5BSpZDmLVCfGzkQwtTdxVdXKwMJCowzJUux3UnQXteUKYpxhkpf7 Ks5/mdfbEECRag2XDqzks8OQ1xDYg0n3CDKP8+Vt+My5h4hAeFmoCLE1jTyzQQh4 KMd/jExT1Buc6tQUo18DAC0iIi/S8a3qjnsD+CJz9ynEOk0h4uzHfOhdbznKjzbw 1/kFC/dGwXTArtaCUMkLea/knrMxTzTw6YnPcIFG2I8v09np6UFIndVqjlLX8k4Z oRgRjLi6Y+6YzUKH7wAsfY2isAex7lfa0DwR1Vi+ugvAaPRsCemD5GYEgP5W8OQo ViH8+gSmb7V9k6iCGrkvv3QMnNaQCGDZqt3DoSFXfSUgAGpwz2cGfu25uJ444Xnw lP7nPiywa1AV446G/+uw =L/Vv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --6sX45UoQRIJXqkqR-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com (Mark Brown) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 16:17:44 +0000 Subject: [PATCH v2 2/2] regulator: add device tree support for max8997 In-Reply-To: <4F217100.6020105@samsung.com> References: <1326353738-26864-1-git-send-email-thomas.abraham@linaro.org> <1326353738-26864-3-git-send-email-thomas.abraham@linaro.org> <4F1FD1A5.1060305@samsung.com> <20120125112602.GB2991@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <4F1FEF55.8030604@samsung.com> <20120125133254.GJ3687@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <4F217100.6020105@samsung.com> Message-ID: <20120126161744.GB19703@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 04:28:00PM +0100, Karol Lewandowski wrote: > On 25.01.2012 14:32, Mark Brown wrote: > >Well, they're different things. Device tree isn't Linux specific at > >all. > There is no official platform-agnostic regulator API, nor DT-bindings > document I'm aware of. Thus, I don't see why, while transitioning to The binding for the regulator API is supposed to be the one true platform agnostic binding, none of the device tree stuff is supposed to be Linux specific. > DT, should we lose ability to describe certain hardware configurations. We don't loose anything, a single voltage constraint that didn't set apply_uV was always meaningless. I keep meaning to make the core complain about things like that and people specifying voltage ranges without SET_VOLTAGE. > On 25.01.2012 12:22, Mark Brown wrote: > > The big problem there seems like specifying voltages in the first > > place, if we know what device it is we should already know what's > > going on. > Driver which handles said regulator might know what's going on, but > that might not be case for its consumers. Should we limit ability to > query given parameter just because its value is hardcoded in hardware? I'm sorry, this makes no sense. Setting a value in the constraints is not going to have any impact on the value reported by the driver, it never has. > Consequently, if it's property of hardware that it provides fixed > voltage somewhere shouldn't it be possible to describe this fact > in DT? If the device has a fixed voltage output the driver should just know this without having to read the information from device tree, device tree is for configuration. If the device has some hardware fixed configurability it should define this in a sensible fashion in the bindings (which may for example be a case of specifying the values of the passive components for ease of use). -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: