From: Karol Lewandowski <k.lewandowsk@samsung.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc: Thomas Abraham <thomas.abraham@linaro.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rpurdie@rpsys.net,
rob.herring@calxeda.com, grant.likely@secretlab.ca,
kgene.kim@samsung.com, myungjoo.ham@samsung.com,
kyungmin.park@samsung.com, dg77.kim@samsung.com,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@ti.com>,
Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] regulator: add device tree support for max8997
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 10:58:08 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F227530.3050708@samsung.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120126161744.GB19703@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
>> On 25.01.2012 12:22, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> The big problem there seems like specifying voltages in the first
>>> place, if we know what device it is we should already know what's
>>> going on.
>
>> Driver which handles said regulator might know what's going on, but
>> that might not be case for its consumers. Should we limit ability to
>> query given parameter just because its value is hardcoded in hardware?
>
> I'm sorry, this makes no sense. Setting a value in the constraints is
> not going to have any impact on the value reported by the driver, it
> never has.
... with the exception of fixed regulator, that is. This is from where I
got my flawed understanding.
Looking at other drivers I see that's indeed special case not practiced
elsewhere.
Thanks for explaining this.
Regards,
--
Karol Lewandowski | Samsung Poland R&D Center | Linux/Platform
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: k.lewandowsk@samsung.com (Karol Lewandowski)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 2/2] regulator: add device tree support for max8997
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 10:58:08 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F227530.3050708@samsung.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120126161744.GB19703@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
>> On 25.01.2012 12:22, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> The big problem there seems like specifying voltages in the first
>>> place, if we know what device it is we should already know what's
>>> going on.
>
>> Driver which handles said regulator might know what's going on, but
>> that might not be case for its consumers. Should we limit ability to
>> query given parameter just because its value is hardcoded in hardware?
>
> I'm sorry, this makes no sense. Setting a value in the constraints is
> not going to have any impact on the value reported by the driver, it
> never has.
... with the exception of fixed regulator, that is. This is from where I
got my flawed understanding.
Looking at other drivers I see that's indeed special case not practiced
elsewhere.
Thanks for explaining this.
Regards,
--
Karol Lewandowski | Samsung Poland R&D Center | Linux/Platform
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-01-27 9:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-01-12 7:35 [PATCH v2 0/2] Add device tree support for MAX8997 Thomas Abraham
2012-01-12 7:35 ` Thomas Abraham
2012-01-12 7:35 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] mfd: add irq domain support for max8997 interrupts Thomas Abraham
2012-01-12 7:35 ` Thomas Abraham
2012-01-12 7:35 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] regulator: add device tree support for max8997 Thomas Abraham
2012-01-12 7:35 ` Thomas Abraham
2012-01-12 9:49 ` MyungJoo Ham
2012-01-12 9:49 ` MyungJoo Ham
2012-01-12 10:39 ` Thomas Abraham
2012-01-12 10:39 ` Thomas Abraham
2012-01-23 17:50 ` Karol Lewandowski
2012-01-23 17:50 ` Karol Lewandowski
2012-01-23 17:50 ` Karol Lewandowski
2012-01-23 18:20 ` Mark Brown
2012-01-23 18:20 ` Mark Brown
2012-01-23 19:21 ` Karol Lewandowski
2012-01-23 19:21 ` Karol Lewandowski
2012-01-23 19:33 ` Mark Brown
2012-01-23 19:33 ` Mark Brown
2012-01-25 9:55 ` Karol Lewandowski
2012-01-25 9:55 ` Karol Lewandowski
2012-01-25 11:26 ` Mark Brown
2012-01-25 11:26 ` Mark Brown
2012-01-25 12:02 ` Karol Lewandowski
2012-01-25 12:02 ` Karol Lewandowski
2012-01-25 13:32 ` Mark Brown
2012-01-25 13:32 ` Mark Brown
2012-01-26 15:28 ` Karol Lewandowski
2012-01-26 15:28 ` Karol Lewandowski
2012-01-26 16:17 ` Mark Brown
2012-01-26 16:17 ` Mark Brown
2012-01-27 9:58 ` Karol Lewandowski [this message]
2012-01-27 9:58 ` Karol Lewandowski
2012-01-27 11:19 ` Mark Brown
2012-01-27 11:19 ` Mark Brown
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=4F227530.3050708@samsung.com \
--to=k.lewandowsk@samsung.com \
--cc=broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
--cc=dg77.kim@samsung.com \
--cc=grant.likely@secretlab.ca \
--cc=kgene.kim@samsung.com \
--cc=kyungmin.park@samsung.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=myungjoo.ham@samsung.com \
--cc=rnayak@ti.com \
--cc=rob.herring@calxeda.com \
--cc=rpurdie@rpsys.net \
--cc=s.nawrocki@samsung.com \
--cc=thomas.abraham@linaro.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.