From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: lee.jones@linaro.org (Lee Jones)
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 11:48:18 +0000
Subject: [PATCH 02/12] regulator: gpio-regulator: Only read GPIO
 [dis|en]able pin if not always-on
In-Reply-To: <20121210141000.GC6103@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
References: <1355129761-8088-1-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org>
 <1355129761-8088-3-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org>
 <20121210141000.GC6103@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Message-ID: <20121213114818.GH27617@gmail.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Mon, 10 Dec 2012, Mark Brown wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 08:55:51AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > If a regulator is specified as always-on, then it can't have an
> > enable/disable pin, as it can't be turned off.
> 
> Sometimes always on gets set for regulators which do have a physical
> control wired up - the control might exist for use in suspend mode for
> example.  Is the ability to specify an enable pin causing a practical
> problem for systems?  If it is we should fix that.

I'm not sure I understand.

My logic is that there is no point in requesting a pin which can
disable a regulator that can't be disabled. Then we can follow
on from that logic and say that if a regulator is _not_ always on
this we _require_ a way to disable it, thus we insist on an enable
GPIO pin.

With me?

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog