From: John Crispin <blogic-p3rKhJxN3npAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org>
To: Mark Brown <broonie-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
Cc: "Liam Girdwood"
<lgirdwood-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
"HenryC Chen (陳建豪)"
<HenryC.Chen-NuS5LvNUpcJWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>,
linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
linux-mediatek-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org,
"Matthias Brugger"
<matthias.bgg-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
"Chen Zhong" <chen.zhong-NuS5LvNUpcJWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>,
linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 2/2] regulator: mt6323: Add support for MT6323 regulator
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 19:13:48 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56AA5A5C.9080402@openwrt.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160127144105.GQ6042-GFdadSzt00ze9xe1eoZjHA@public.gmane.org>
On 27/01/2016 15:41, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 01:00:59PM +0100, John Crispin wrote:
>
>> + /* Constrain board-specific capabilities according to what
>> + * this driver and the chip itself can actually do.
>> + */
>> + c = rdev->constraints;
>> + c->valid_modes_mask |= REGULATOR_MODE_NORMAL |
>> + REGULATOR_MODE_STANDBY;
>> + c->valid_ops_mask |= REGULATOR_CHANGE_MODE;
>
> 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.
>
> The comment is also inaccurate, it claims it's imposing constraints but
> in fact it's adding additional permissions.
>
Hi Mark
would the following two bindings be ok ? I would create patches to add them.
* regulator-allow-mode; or regulator-allow-change-mode;
* regulator-modes = <REGULATOR_MODE_NORMAL REGULATOR_MODE_STANDBY>;
John
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: blogic@openwrt.org (John Crispin)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH V4 2/2] regulator: mt6323: Add support for MT6323 regulator
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 19:13:48 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56AA5A5C.9080402@openwrt.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160127144105.GQ6042@sirena.org.uk>
On 27/01/2016 15:41, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 01:00:59PM +0100, John Crispin wrote:
>
>> + /* Constrain board-specific capabilities according to what
>> + * this driver and the chip itself can actually do.
>> + */
>> + c = rdev->constraints;
>> + c->valid_modes_mask |= REGULATOR_MODE_NORMAL |
>> + REGULATOR_MODE_STANDBY;
>> + c->valid_ops_mask |= REGULATOR_CHANGE_MODE;
>
> 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.
>
> The comment is also inaccurate, it claims it's imposing constraints but
> in fact it's adding additional permissions.
>
Hi Mark
would the following two bindings be ok ? I would create patches to add them.
* regulator-allow-mode; or regulator-allow-change-mode;
* regulator-modes = <REGULATOR_MODE_NORMAL REGULATOR_MODE_STANDBY>;
John
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: John Crispin <blogic@openwrt.org>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: "Liam Girdwood" <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
"Chen Zhong" <chen.zhong@mediatek.com>,
"Matthias Brugger" <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org,
"HenryC Chen (陳建豪)" <HenryC.Chen@mediatek.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 2/2] regulator: mt6323: Add support for MT6323 regulator
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 19:13:48 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56AA5A5C.9080402@openwrt.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160127144105.GQ6042@sirena.org.uk>
On 27/01/2016 15:41, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 01:00:59PM +0100, John Crispin wrote:
>
>> + /* Constrain board-specific capabilities according to what
>> + * this driver and the chip itself can actually do.
>> + */
>> + c = rdev->constraints;
>> + c->valid_modes_mask |= REGULATOR_MODE_NORMAL |
>> + REGULATOR_MODE_STANDBY;
>> + c->valid_ops_mask |= REGULATOR_CHANGE_MODE;
>
> 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.
>
> The comment is also inaccurate, it claims it's imposing constraints but
> in fact it's adding additional permissions.
>
Hi Mark
would the following two bindings be ok ? I would create patches to add them.
* regulator-allow-mode; or regulator-allow-change-mode;
* regulator-modes = <REGULATOR_MODE_NORMAL REGULATOR_MODE_STANDBY>;
John
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-01-28 18:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-01-27 12:00 [PATCH V4 1/2] regulator: Add document for MT6323 regulator John Crispin
2016-01-27 12:00 ` John Crispin
2016-01-27 12:00 ` John Crispin
2016-01-27 12:00 ` [PATCH V4 2/2] regulator: mt6323: Add support " John Crispin
2016-01-27 12:00 ` John Crispin
2016-01-27 14:41 ` Mark Brown
2016-01-27 14:41 ` Mark Brown
2016-01-28 7:16 ` Henry Chen
2016-01-28 7:16 ` Henry Chen
2016-01-28 7:16 ` Henry Chen
2016-01-28 11:38 ` Mark Brown
2016-01-28 11:38 ` Mark Brown
[not found] ` <20160127144105.GQ6042-GFdadSzt00ze9xe1eoZjHA@public.gmane.org>
2016-01-28 18:13 ` John Crispin [this message]
2016-01-28 18:13 ` John Crispin
2016-01-28 18:13 ` John Crispin
2016-01-28 23:13 ` Mark Brown
2016-01-28 23:13 ` Mark Brown
2016-01-29 9:52 ` menghui lin
2016-01-29 9:52 ` menghui lin
2016-01-29 11:27 ` Mark Brown
2016-01-29 11:27 ` Mark Brown
2016-01-29 12:11 ` menghui lin
2016-01-29 12:11 ` menghui lin
2016-02-02 19:38 ` Mark Brown
2016-02-02 19:38 ` Mark Brown
2016-02-03 5:39 ` menghui lin
2016-02-03 5:39 ` menghui lin
2016-02-03 12:29 ` Mark Brown
2016-02-03 12:29 ` Mark Brown
2016-02-04 2:42 ` menghui lin
2016-02-04 2:42 ` menghui lin
2016-02-02 19:39 ` Mark Brown
2016-02-02 19:39 ` Mark Brown
2016-02-08 12:14 ` kbuild test robot
2016-02-08 12:14 ` kbuild test robot
2016-02-08 12:14 ` kbuild test robot
2016-02-01 15:40 ` [PATCH V4 1/2] regulator: Add document " Rob Herring
2016-02-01 15:40 ` Rob Herring
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=56AA5A5C.9080402@openwrt.org \
--to=blogic-p3rkhjxn3npafugrpc6u6w@public.gmane.org \
--cc=HenryC.Chen-NuS5LvNUpcJWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org \
--cc=broonie-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org \
--cc=chen.zhong-NuS5LvNUpcJWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org \
--cc=lgirdwood-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linux-mediatek-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org \
--cc=matthias.bgg-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.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.