From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com (Mark Brown) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 11:53:09 +0900 Subject: [PATCH 01/12] regulator: gpio-regulator: Demote GPIO Regulator driver to start later In-Reply-To: <20121213115524.GI27617@gmail.com> References: <1355129761-8088-1-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <1355129761-8088-2-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <20121210140751.GB6103@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <20121210142836.GG9362@gmail.com> <20121210143141.GG6103@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <20121213115524.GI27617@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20121214025307.GB4478@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:55:24AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > I understand your logic, hence why I wrote such a lengthy commit > message. However, I'm not sure I see a logical way around it. Asking > all users of MMCI to provide a not-regulator to declare that a > secondary regulator isn't available seems a little unreasonable to me. > Is there anything else we can do? Have all the people setting up this secondary regulator explicitly declare it? From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755968Ab2LNCxR (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Dec 2012 21:53:17 -0500 Received: from opensource.wolfsonmicro.com ([80.75.67.52]:32933 "EHLO opensource.wolfsonmicro.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753444Ab2LNCxQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Dec 2012 21:53:16 -0500 Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 11:53:09 +0900 From: Mark Brown To: Lee Jones 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 01/12] regulator: gpio-regulator: Demote GPIO Regulator driver to start later Message-ID: <20121214025307.GB4478@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> References: <1355129761-8088-1-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <1355129761-8088-2-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <20121210140751.GB6103@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <20121210142836.GG9362@gmail.com> <20121210143141.GG6103@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <20121213115524.GI27617@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20121213115524.GI27617@gmail.com> X-Cookie: Big book, big bore. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:55:24AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > I understand your logic, hence why I wrote such a lengthy commit > message. However, I'm not sure I see a logical way around it. Asking > all users of MMCI to provide a not-regulator to declare that a > secondary regulator isn't available seems a little unreasonable to me. > Is there anything else we can do? Have all the people setting up this secondary regulator explicitly declare it?