From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com (Mark Brown) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 11:49:41 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] regulator: twl6030: add support for vdd1, vdd2 and vdd3 regulators In-Reply-To: <1330076289.4102.517.camel@sokoban> References: <1329995109-4795-1-git-send-email-t-kristo@ti.com> <20120223153422.GF4553@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <1330076289.4102.517.camel@sokoban> Message-ID: <20120224114940.GB5450@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 11:38:09AM +0200, Tero Kristo wrote: > On Thu, 2012-02-23 at 15:34 +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > Since you're using min_uV as the "register value" you probably ought to > > be returning that as the selector too and supplying a list_voltage() > > which just passes the selector back in case something tries to use it > > and gets confused. > I was thinking at some point about adding a list_voltage for these > regulators, however I dropped that idea, because the regulators can > support a range of voltages (from min to max) with some stepping value. > But... if you propose that the list_voltage would just return the > current voltage back, wouldn't that also potentially confuse the user > more, as it can only see the single voltage and nothing else, maybe > making it to think that the regulator can only support one voltage > level? Yes, that'd be completely broken. You'd need to just return the selector back which would tell them that they had voltage control in microvolt steps. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: