From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Brown Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 2/2] regulator: mt6323: Add support for MT6323 regulator Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 11:38:40 +0000 Message-ID: <20160128113840.GA6078@sirena.org.uk> References: <1453896059-44589-1-git-send-email-blogic@openwrt.org> <1453896059-44589-2-git-send-email-blogic@openwrt.org> <20160127144105.GQ6042@sirena.org.uk> <1453965401.19407.18.camel@mtksdaap41> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="NzB8fVQJ5HfG6fxh" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1453965401.19407.18.camel@mtksdaap41> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Henry Chen Cc: John Crispin , Liam Girdwood , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org, Matthias Brugger , Chen Zhong , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org --NzB8fVQJ5HfG6fxh Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 03:16:41PM +0800, Henry Chen wrote: > On Wed, 2016-01-27 at 14:41 +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > No, drivers should *never* enable things that weren't explictly enabled > > by the machine constraints. This misses the whole point of having > > constraints. They are there so that the system integrator can enable > > the functionality that is safe on a given board. =20 > Okay..the constrains should be define on device tree. > But which optional properties was suitable to fill on device tree if cons= umers want to call > regulator_set_mode directly ? > I have check the of_regulator.c and not found the suitable property name = which can set valid_modes_mask & valid_ops_mask. If you need to change the mode at runtime you will need to develop a binding for that, there isn't one at present. --NzB8fVQJ5HfG6fxh Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWqf26AAoJECTWi3JdVIfQE/gH/04puRWHiekNaA3j9V8AHaT+ zVmzu9a9A3uFxrqEBcLiFbxwZ1C8gelB7PaQFR/L/Tusmmp4xlQYEfSfzabppDXc GJw7eGQAsxjlt223EjkCi62DNJXenXzkVqqf8u1jGh1PXHN+S7C5sr99n9LbI9jp NEp049vpKWVymJy0iw8T7YOHWQRRtYmy7QswsII//4u3gxDJ8tLCLmHZN4ymGHW0 puvnSQYYeLdGRgFMOTnuKU+6uvQ4EHCC5CrcQKLWxUbrkPLkyPnzjmI9nbWmeVUu LUkFxf3O6FB2anDCHR96rgKGsPfJW+ZlVgreKyxJj8xvqNixomGGZ1ZRbQS5fGs= =/asa -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --NzB8fVQJ5HfG6fxh-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: broonie@kernel.org (Mark Brown) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 11:38:40 +0000 Subject: [PATCH V4 2/2] regulator: mt6323: Add support for MT6323 regulator In-Reply-To: <1453965401.19407.18.camel@mtksdaap41> References: <1453896059-44589-1-git-send-email-blogic@openwrt.org> <1453896059-44589-2-git-send-email-blogic@openwrt.org> <20160127144105.GQ6042@sirena.org.uk> <1453965401.19407.18.camel@mtksdaap41> Message-ID: <20160128113840.GA6078@sirena.org.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 03:16:41PM +0800, Henry Chen wrote: > On Wed, 2016-01-27 at 14:41 +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > No, drivers should *never* enable things that weren't explictly enabled > > by the machine constraints. This misses the whole point of having > > constraints. They are there so that the system integrator can enable > > the functionality that is safe on a given board. > Okay..the constrains should be define on device tree. > But which optional properties was suitable to fill on device tree if consumers want to call > regulator_set_mode directly ? > I have check the of_regulator.c and not found the suitable property name which can set valid_modes_mask & valid_ops_mask. If you need to change the mode at runtime you will need to develop a binding for that, there isn't one at present. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 473 bytes Desc: not available URL: