From: lee.jones@linaro.org (Lee Jones)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 02/12] regulator: gpio-regulator: Only read GPIO [dis|en]able pin if not always-on
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 11:48:18 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121213114818.GH27617@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20121210141000.GC6103@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
On Mon, 10 Dec 2012, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 08:55:51AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > If a regulator is specified as always-on, then it can't have an
> > enable/disable pin, as it can't be turned off.
>
> Sometimes always on gets set for regulators which do have a physical
> control wired up - the control might exist for use in suspend mode for
> example. Is the ability to specify an enable pin causing a practical
> problem for systems? If it is we should fix that.
I'm not sure I understand.
My logic is that there is no point in requesting a pin which can
disable a regulator that can't be disabled. Then we can follow
on from that logic and say that if a regulator is _not_ always on
this we _require_ a way to disable it, thus we insist on an enable
GPIO pin.
With me?
--
Lee Jones
Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, arnd@arndb.de,
linus.walleij@stericsson.com, ulf.hansson@linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/12] regulator: gpio-regulator: Only read GPIO [dis|en]able pin if not always-on
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 11:48:18 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121213114818.GH27617@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20121210141000.GC6103@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
On Mon, 10 Dec 2012, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 08:55:51AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > If a regulator is specified as always-on, then it can't have an
> > enable/disable pin, as it can't be turned off.
>
> Sometimes always on gets set for regulators which do have a physical
> control wired up - the control might exist for use in suspend mode for
> example. Is the ability to specify an enable pin causing a practical
> problem for systems? If it is we should fix that.
I'm not sure I understand.
My logic is that there is no point in requesting a pin which can
disable a regulator that can't be disabled. Then we can follow
on from that logic and say that if a regulator is _not_ always on
this we _require_ a way to disable it, thus we insist on an enable
GPIO pin.
With me?
--
Lee Jones
Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-12-13 11:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 74+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-12-10 8:55 [PATCH 00/12] Functionality add and bug-fixes related to MMCI regulators Lee Jones
2012-12-10 8:55 ` Lee Jones
2012-12-10 8:55 ` [PATCH 01/12] regulator: gpio-regulator: Demote GPIO Regulator driver to start later Lee Jones
2012-12-10 8:55 ` Lee Jones
2012-12-10 14:07 ` Mark Brown
2012-12-10 14:07 ` Mark Brown
2012-12-10 14:28 ` Lee Jones
2012-12-10 14:28 ` Lee Jones
2012-12-10 14:31 ` Mark Brown
2012-12-10 14:31 ` Mark Brown
2012-12-13 11:55 ` Lee Jones
2012-12-13 11:55 ` Lee Jones
2012-12-14 2:53 ` Mark Brown
2012-12-14 2:53 ` Mark Brown
2012-12-10 8:55 ` [PATCH 02/12] regulator: gpio-regulator: Only read GPIO [dis|en]able pin if not always-on Lee Jones
2012-12-10 8:55 ` Lee Jones
2012-12-10 14:10 ` Mark Brown
2012-12-10 14:10 ` Mark Brown
2012-12-13 11:48 ` Lee Jones [this message]
2012-12-13 11:48 ` Lee Jones
2012-12-14 2:46 ` Mark Brown
2012-12-14 2:46 ` Mark Brown
2012-12-10 8:55 ` [PATCH 03/12] regulator: gpio-regulator: Fix logical error in for() loop Lee Jones
2012-12-10 8:55 ` Lee Jones
2012-12-10 14:12 ` Mark Brown
2012-12-10 14:12 ` Mark Brown
2012-12-10 8:55 ` [PATCH 04/12] regulator: gpio-regulator: gpio_set_value should use cansleep Lee Jones
2012-12-10 8:55 ` Lee Jones
2012-12-10 14:13 ` Mark Brown
2012-12-10 14:13 ` Mark Brown
2012-12-10 8:55 ` [PATCH 05/12] mmc: mmci: Move ios_handler functionality into the driver Lee Jones
2012-12-10 8:55 ` Lee Jones
2012-12-10 8:55 ` [PATCH 06/12] ARM: ux500: Set correct MMCI regulator voltages in the ux5x0 Device Tree Lee Jones
2012-12-10 8:55 ` Lee Jones
2012-12-11 9:17 ` Linus Walleij
2012-12-11 9:17 ` Linus Walleij
2012-12-11 9:37 ` Ulf Hansson
2012-12-11 9:37 ` Ulf Hansson
2012-12-11 9:54 ` Lee Jones
2012-12-11 9:54 ` Lee Jones
2012-12-10 8:55 ` [PATCH 07/12] ARM: ux500: Specify the ux5x0 MMCI regulator's on/off GPIO as high-enable Lee Jones
2012-12-10 8:55 ` Lee Jones
2012-12-11 9:17 ` Linus Walleij
2012-12-11 9:17 ` Linus Walleij
2012-12-10 8:55 ` [PATCH 08/12] ARM: ux500: Specify which IOS regulator to use for MMCI Lee Jones
2012-12-10 8:55 ` Lee Jones
2012-12-11 9:18 ` Linus Walleij
2012-12-11 9:18 ` Linus Walleij
2012-12-10 8:55 ` [PATCH 09/12] ARM: ux500: Use the correct name when supplying a GPIO enable pin Lee Jones
2012-12-10 8:55 ` Lee Jones
2012-12-11 9:18 ` Linus Walleij
2012-12-11 9:18 ` Linus Walleij
2012-12-10 8:55 ` [PATCH 10/12] ARM: ux500: Setup correct settling time for the MMCI regulator Lee Jones
2012-12-10 8:55 ` Lee Jones
2012-12-11 9:18 ` Linus Walleij
2012-12-11 9:18 ` Linus Walleij
2012-12-10 8:56 ` [PATCH 11/12] ARM: ux500: Use the GPIO regulator framework for SDI0's 'en' and 'vsel' Lee Jones
2012-12-10 8:56 ` Lee Jones
2012-12-10 10:18 ` Ulf Hansson
2012-12-10 10:18 ` Ulf Hansson
2012-12-10 10:20 ` Ulf Hansson
2012-12-10 10:20 ` Ulf Hansson
2012-12-10 10:30 ` Lee Jones
2012-12-10 10:30 ` Lee Jones
2012-12-10 12:06 ` Ulf Hansson
2012-12-10 12:06 ` Ulf Hansson
2012-12-10 11:08 ` [PATCH 11/12 v2] " Lee Jones
2012-12-10 11:08 ` Lee Jones
2012-12-10 12:20 ` Ulf Hansson
2012-12-10 12:20 ` Ulf Hansson
2012-12-10 8:56 ` [PATCH 12/12] ARM: ux500: Remove traces of the ios_handler from platform code Lee Jones
2012-12-10 8:56 ` Lee Jones
2012-12-11 9:19 ` Linus Walleij
2012-12-11 9:19 ` Linus Walleij
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=20121213114818.GH27617@gmail.com \
--to=lee.jones@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.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.