From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Karol Lewandowski Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] regulator: add device tree support for max8997 Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 10:58:08 +0100 Message-ID: <4F227530.3050708@samsung.com> References: <1326353738-26864-1-git-send-email-thomas.abraham@linaro.org> <1326353738-26864-3-git-send-email-thomas.abraham@linaro.org> <4F1FD1A5.1060305@samsung.com> <20120125112602.GB2991@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <4F1FEF55.8030604@samsung.com> <20120125133254.GJ3687@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <4F217100.6020105@samsung.com> <20120126161744.GB19703@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Return-path: Received: from mailout2.w1.samsung.com ([210.118.77.12]:32415 "EHLO mailout2.w1.samsung.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752408Ab2A0J6J (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jan 2012 04:58:09 -0500 In-reply-to: <20120126161744.GB19703@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org To: Mark Brown Cc: Thomas Abraham , 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 , Sylwester Nawrocki >> 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 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: k.lewandowsk@samsung.com (Karol Lewandowski) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 10:58:08 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v2 2/2] regulator: add device tree support for max8997 In-Reply-To: <20120126161744.GB19703@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> References: <1326353738-26864-1-git-send-email-thomas.abraham@linaro.org> <1326353738-26864-3-git-send-email-thomas.abraham@linaro.org> <4F1FD1A5.1060305@samsung.com> <20120125112602.GB2991@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <4F1FEF55.8030604@samsung.com> <20120125133254.GJ3687@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <4F217100.6020105@samsung.com> <20120126161744.GB19703@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> Message-ID: <4F227530.3050708@samsung.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org >> 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