From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: viresh.kumar@linaro.org (Viresh Kumar) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 12:15:36 +0530 Subject: [RFC 0/5] drivers: Add boot constraints core In-Reply-To: <20170703150733.sop6yrrpfl3ne32g@sirena.org.uk> References: <20170630035533.GV29665@vireshk-i7> <20170630041211.GX29665@vireshk-i7> <20170630051203.GY29665@vireshk-i7> <20170630084330.GB29665@vireshk-i7> <20170630121026.azppihjqls5i6bbr@sirena.org.uk> <20170703061552.GB3532@vireshk-i7> <20170703150733.sop6yrrpfl3ne32g@sirena.org.uk> Message-ID: <20170704064536.GG3532@vireshk-i7> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 03-07-17, 16:07, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Jul 03, 2017 at 11:45:52AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > The above regulator-min/max-microvolt values I mentioned were for the regulator > > device and not what the consumers would request. Yes, DMA will request something > > If you're putting the maximum possible range that the physical regulator > can supply into machine constraints then you really haven't understood > what machine constraints are at all. I wasn't referring to the limits of the physical regulators but the min/max that the consumers can set on a particular platform. > No, it really shouldn't. Please read what I wrote. Sorry about that. Understood it now. -- viresh