[PATCH] ARM: S3C64XX: Hook up VDDINT on Cragganmore

[PATCH] ARM: S3C64XX: Hook up VDDINT on Cragganmore

[Mark Brown]

Basic hookup, we do have a GPIO to use to control the voltage but we don't
currently use it.

Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
---
 arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/mach-crag6410.c |    7 +++++++
 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/mach-crag6410.c b/arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/mach-crag6410.c
index 47a36c4..879d949 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/mach-crag6410.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/mach-crag6410.c
@@ -381,6 +381,10 @@ static struct regulator_init_data vddarm __initdata = {
 	.driver_data = &vddarm_pdata,
 };
 
+static struct regulator_consumer_supply vddint_consumers[] __initdata = {
+	REGULATOR_SUPPLY("vddint", NULL),
+};
+
 static struct regulator_init_data vddint __initdata = {
 	.constraints = {
 		.name = "VDDINT",
@@ -389,6 +393,9 @@ static struct regulator_init_data vddint __initdata = {
 		.always_on = 1,
 		.valid_ops_mask = REGULATOR_CHANGE_VOLTAGE,
 	},
+	.num_consumer_supplies = ARRAY_SIZE(vddint_consumers),
+	.consumer_supplies = vddint_consumers,
+	.supply_regulator = "WALLVDD",
 };
 
 static struct regulator_init_data vddmem __initdata = {
-- 
1.7.7.3

[PATCH] ARM: S3C64XX: Hook up VDDINT on Cragganmore

[Kyungmin Park]

On 12/6/11, Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> wrote:
> Basic hookup, we do have a GPIO to use to control the voltage but we don't
> currently use it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/mach-crag6410.c |    7 +++++++
>  1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/mach-crag6410.c
> b/arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/mach-crag6410.c
> index 47a36c4..879d949 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/mach-crag6410.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/mach-crag6410.c
> @@ -381,6 +381,10 @@ static struct regulator_init_data vddarm __initdata = {
>  	.driver_data = &vddarm_pdata,
>  };
>
> +static struct regulator_consumer_supply vddint_consumers[] __initdata = {
> +	REGULATOR_SUPPLY("vddint", NULL),

Now there's mixed usage for vddint. until s5pc110 it uses the 'vddint'
but after exynos it uses the 'vdd_int'. either is okay but need to use
the same name for consistency?

How do you think?

Thank you,
Kyungmin Park
> +};
> +
>  static struct regulator_init_data vddint __initdata = {
>  	.constraints = {
>  		.name = "VDDINT",
> @@ -389,6 +393,9 @@ static struct regulator_init_data vddint __initdata = {
>  		.always_on = 1,
>  		.valid_ops_mask = REGULATOR_CHANGE_VOLTAGE,
>  	},
> +	.num_consumer_supplies = ARRAY_SIZE(vddint_consumers),
> +	.consumer_supplies = vddint_consumers,
> +	.supply_regulator = "WALLVDD",
>  };
>
>  static struct regulator_init_data vddmem __initdata = {
> --
> 1.7.7.3
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
>

[PATCH] ARM: S3C64XX: Hook up VDDINT on Cragganmore

[Mark Brown]

On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 08:21:30AM +0900, Kyungmin Park wrote:

> > +	REGULATOR_SUPPLY("vddint", NULL),

> Now there's mixed usage for vddint. until s5pc110 it uses the 'vddint'
> but after exynos it uses the 'vdd_int'. either is okay but need to use
> the same name for consistency?

> How do you think?

I don't really care either way.  I called it vddint because the existing
s3c64xx ARM core supply is called vddarm by software so I was also going
for consistency here :) .  If we want to ensure consistency we should
just pick something and move to it, though I don't know if it's really
worth the effort.

[PATCH] ARM: S3C64XX: Hook up VDDINT on Cragganmore

[Kukjin Kim]

Mark Brown wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 08:21:30AM +0900, Kyungmin Park wrote:
> 
> > > +	REGULATOR_SUPPLY("vddint", NULL),
> 
> > Now there's mixed usage for vddint. until s5pc110 it uses the 'vddint'
> > but after exynos it uses the 'vdd_int'. either is okay but need to use
> > the same name for consistency?
> 
> > How do you think?
> 
> I don't really care either way.  I called it vddint because the existing
> s3c64xx ARM core supply is called vddarm by software so I was also going
> for consistency here :) .  If we want to ensure consistency we should
> just pick something and move to it, though I don't know if it's really
> worth the effort.

Yes, I think so. If required, let's move it later.

Looks ok to me, will apply.
Thanks.

Best regards,
Kgene.
--
Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>, Senior Engineer,
SW Solution Development Team, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.