From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Brown Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: twl6030: add support for vdd1, vdd2 and vdd3 regulators Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 11:49:41 +0000 Message-ID: <20120224114940.GB5450@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> References: <1329995109-4795-1-git-send-email-t-kristo@ti.com> <20120223153422.GF4553@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <1330076289.4102.517.camel@sokoban> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="rJwd6BRFiFCcLxzm" Return-path: Received: from opensource.wolfsonmicro.com ([80.75.67.52]:42854 "EHLO opensource.wolfsonmicro.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755782Ab2BXLtn (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Feb 2012 06:49:43 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1330076289.4102.517.camel@sokoban> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Tero Kristo Cc: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Liam Girdwood , Samuel Ortiz , Kevin Hilman --rJwd6BRFiFCcLxzm Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 11:38:09AM +0200, Tero Kristo wrote: > On Thu, 2012-02-23 at 15:34 +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > Since you're using min_uV as the "register value" you probably ought to > > be returning that as the selector too and supplying a list_voltage() > > which just passes the selector back in case something tries to use it > > and gets confused. > I was thinking at some point about adding a list_voltage for these > regulators, however I dropped that idea, because the regulators can > support a range of voltages (from min to max) with some stepping value. > But... if you propose that the list_voltage would just return the > current voltage back, wouldn't that also potentially confuse the user > more, as it can only see the single voltage and nothing else, maybe > making it to think that the regulator can only support one voltage > level? Yes, that'd be completely broken. You'd need to just return the selector back which would tell them that they had voltage control in microvolt steps. --rJwd6BRFiFCcLxzm Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJPR3kuAAoJEBus8iNuMP3dHDAP/0hvMVEJwvLh0OyoiMA9YZv2 +/D4XU9poUxUEazqLBDsuOKa4vg8K/a8w9fF7bKMlpE6AMiNJS+PBsAU2f92IhFE sKNnpQKChqaxaQCYeKPGUBTM2Mnyn+RN2vjK+Wuby46JhmvVRXEJl8t3KM2QKybk jNEyri3MtoxUop4h//YkBu2Qeh25KHzFuifF3zxQwq68e5rUyphbmxwu10ozfH7D 3/B92oMBV6K4ric8QecmFRycRgaNo9mATJaPVY7LCFsIOw1+xDBxupCXKAPHLN3Z RQzgdJfR4HE4rKWKpyQ/2Zaiy5PzoEw/HAcvzhol9FfJk32P9VQR3Jf6UA68jSqY ZPbBnjGb6ESo9S6PT959u8rN5FQ6Z9d/4o1YxpxNTDgfVBqO12BF0FtC5wOd36HB QKDDZrcBXgZEAqCjecDZaBcM4DOFrcOuNO2Zs20I3BkpeRuI6zSxng1XOuJ25Un2 573nZdZm6oKEKsL9pg2w1Jdqct8QYfBCWjcSt+tHMK4H8vu9fnnGRUjqmZ6md19R rDwks9kn9K2R/oAa+STfpmWgcX07OEYT2fyCHMgkwM0wUJUpyJiHE/9WWOQAHg7G Y165lSXe0ZFg0RfTI2DTXjr/Il1oyUbJS+ZXvpd+f42D6TyvDtSHqYLy+DUuhDH1 PeCZrE6Vc+aYQESoR7G6 =/QYA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --rJwd6BRFiFCcLxzm-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com (Mark Brown) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 11:49:41 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] regulator: twl6030: add support for vdd1, vdd2 and vdd3 regulators In-Reply-To: <1330076289.4102.517.camel@sokoban> References: <1329995109-4795-1-git-send-email-t-kristo@ti.com> <20120223153422.GF4553@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <1330076289.4102.517.camel@sokoban> Message-ID: <20120224114940.GB5450@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 11:38:09AM +0200, Tero Kristo wrote: > On Thu, 2012-02-23 at 15:34 +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > Since you're using min_uV as the "register value" you probably ought to > > be returning that as the selector too and supplying a list_voltage() > > which just passes the selector back in case something tries to use it > > and gets confused. > I was thinking at some point about adding a list_voltage for these > regulators, however I dropped that idea, because the regulators can > support a range of voltages (from min to max) with some stepping value. > But... if you propose that the list_voltage would just return the > current voltage back, wouldn't that also potentially confuse the user > more, as it can only see the single voltage and nothing else, maybe > making it to think that the regulator can only support one voltage > level? Yes, that'd be completely broken. You'd need to just return the selector back which would tell them that they had voltage control in microvolt steps. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: