Re: [PATCH] omap: board-omap3evm: add required smsc911x regulators

[Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>]

* Matt Porter <mporter@ti.com> [120210 10:19]:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 09:40:47AM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > * Matt Porter <matt@ohporter.com> [120208 13:35]:
> > > This fixes smsc911x support on omap3evm that has been broken since
> > > the smsc911x driver was updated to require the existence of vdd33a
> > > and vddvario supplies.
> > 
> > Great. Few comments:
> > 
> > 1. Could you please include the smsc911x commit and subject here too
> >    so it clearly shows the regression?
> 
> Sure. Will do for v2.
> 
> > 2. Also, why don't you add this fixed regulator to gpmc-smsc911.c?
> > 
> > That way it gets fixed for other too, like zoom2/3.
> 
> Ok, so I considered that at first and had two concerns that made me just
> do it in the omap3evm specific way and see what the feedback was.
> 
> 1) If we do a generic implementation in gpmc-smsc911x.c, there needs to
> be a way to override it. Another board may have a variable supply that
> feeds this consumer.
> 
> 2) Technically, this omap3evm specific implementation matches the hardware
> in that the osk_3v3 rail is software controllable. Granted, I commented
> that we simply don't hook up the gpio at this time since this real
> hardware regulator has always been silently asserted on by the nature of
> the reset state of the TWL GPIOs and the board level pull downs as well.

OK
 
> So that said, I don't need #2 to make omap3evm work and I don't think
> anybody cares yet to actually turn that regulator off (as it will kill
> other things that appear to not have regulator support anyway). It looks
> like you talked me into respinning it as a generic implementation. Only
> question is whether I should bother consider not-yet-existing boards that
> may not want that generic regulator.

Well for future boards the regulator should come from device tree,
so for now it should be safe to add it to gpmc-smsc911.c.

Regards,

Tony