From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: broonie@kernel.org (Mark Brown) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 18:18:31 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] regulator: core: Make regulator object reflect configured voltage In-Reply-To: References: <1391493268-3242-1-git-send-email-bjorn.andersson@sonymobile.com> <20140204110531.GR22609@sirena.org.uk> Message-ID: <20140204181831.GP22609@sirena.org.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 10:02:14AM -0800, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 3:05 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > > Why not do this at the time we apply the voltage? That would seem to be > > more robust, doing it in a separate place means that we might update one > > bit of code and not the other or might change the execution path so that > > one gets run and the other doesn't. > I do share your concerns about having this logic mirrored here is > risky, unfortunately the regulator object is created upon request from > a consumer; so it is not available when regulator_register() calls > set_machine_constraints(). Oh, hang on - that's what you mean by a regulator object... I don't think this fixes the problem you think it does. What is the actual problem you're trying to fix here? The min_uV and max_uV on a consumer struct are supposed to be the request from that consumer, they should only be set if the consumer actually made a request for a voltage range. > An alternative is to drop the conditional setting of > REGULATOR_CHANGE_VOLTAGE from of_regulator.c and force the regulator > drivers to set this flag explicitly; to avoid the difference in > behavior depending on configuration. Why would having each individual driver open code things help? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: