From: ipaton0@gmail.com (Iain Paton)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] sunxi: a20-LIME2 update regulator description
Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2015 10:16:49 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <551FAC01.8000404@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150330231350.GA23664@lukather>
On 31/03/15 00:13, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 05:06:41PM +0000, Iain Paton wrote:
>> configure regulators as per the manufacturers recomendations from their
>> 3.4.x fex file.
>>
>> this is necessary to prevent operating points in the dtsi selecting
>> inappropriate values and causing the board to lockup
> Could you use the axp DTSI please?
>
> That will remove most of the chunk defined in there.
No. See my other reply. The regulators are even more board specific than
the opp data and the interaction between the two is hard to handle at
the best of times.
Using the axp dtsi means that the board dts really has to override every
single possible item that could ever be added to the dtsi just to ensure
stability. This won't remove anything, it'll just add extra unnecessary
stuff to the mix as well as the additional burden on people taking care of
a board watching the axp dtsi to catch any additions there casuing further
problems.
Wishing these things were suitable for a common dtsi unfortunately doesn't
change the reality whatsoever.
I'm with you that exploiting commonality is generally a good thing. It's
just not appropriate here.
It also seems that most other boards have realised that the pmic setup is
board specific and keep it in the appropriate place in the dts.
The only other obvious example I can find apart from sunxi is TI, everyone
else is doing the opposite.
So why the resistance? A repeat of the label based syntax / alphabetical
ordering thing?
Rgds,
Iain
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-04-04 9:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-03-26 17:06 [PATCH 1/2] sunxi: a20-LIME2 update regulator description Iain Paton
2015-03-30 23:13 ` Maxime Ripard
2015-04-04 9:16 ` Iain Paton [this message]
2015-04-09 7:26 ` Maxime Ripard
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=551FAC01.8000404@gmail.com \
--to=ipaton0@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).