From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Brown Subject: Re: [RFC 0/4] TWL external controller support Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 10:24:09 +0900 Message-ID: <20110709012407.GG18860@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> References: <1310140588-26078-1-git-send-email-t-kristo@ti.com> <20110708162531.GE31978@legolas.emea.dhcp.ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from opensource.wolfsonmicro.com ([80.75.67.52]:40243 "EHLO opensource2.wolfsonmicro.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750962Ab1GIBYP (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Jul 2011 21:24:15 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110708162531.GE31978@legolas.emea.dhcp.ti.com> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Felipe Balbi Cc: Tero Kristo , linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, lrg@ti.com On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 07:25:32PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: > isn't this all the same as claiming the regulator but never actually > using the regulator APIs ? I mean, you could add the regulator, then on > smartreflex code, regulator_get(), but when it gets to get/set voltage, > you use the omap_*() functions instead of regulator_*(). That wasn't what I got from the patches but it also sounds like a bad idea. Why go around the core code?