From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com (Mark Brown)
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 10:00:20 +0900
Subject: [PATCH v2 2/2] regulator: Propagate uA_load requirements up
	supply chain
In-Reply-To: <20110329212010.GA30482@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
References: <1301356355-7546-1-git-send-email-collinsd@codeaurora.org>
	<1301356432-7586-2-git-send-email-collinsd@codeaurora.org>
	<20110329084458.GD29330@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
	<4D9203EF.4060303@codeaurora.org>
	<20110329212010.GA30482@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Message-ID: <20110330010016.GB2853@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 06:20:10AM +0900, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 09:08:15AM -0700, David Collins wrote:

> > I agree that it would be beneficial to change regulator_dev.supply from
> > type struct regulator_dev * to type struct regulator *.  However, I think
> > that going that route will be a major undertaking with a lot of details to

> Hrm, it doesn't look too bad - as far as I can see it should just be
> fairly direct refactorings of each of get, put, enable and disable?

I had a look at this, it all looks very straightforward apart from get
where we need to either do a dance to set up a supply mapping or
restructure to expose the core get operation internally without map
lookups (the latter I think) and that doesn't seem terribly invasive.
I may actually try coding it up next time I'm sitting in front of an
appropriate test system.