From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Brown Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: Provide dummy supply support Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 18:42:02 +0100 Message-ID: <20111029174202.GA9646@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> References: <1319833618-25190-1-git-send-email-s.hauer@pengutronix.de> <1319833618-25190-2-git-send-email-s.hauer@pengutronix.de> <20111028215931.GA30366@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <20111028224757.GG23421@pengutronix.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20111028224757.GG23421@pengutronix.de> Sender: linux-sh-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Sascha Hauer Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Liam Girdwood , Linus Walleij , Paul Mundt , Tony Lindgren , Mike Frysinger , linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, uclinux-dist-devel@blackfin.uclinux.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 12:47:57AM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote: > My main concern with the fixed regulator is that it needs quite much > boilerplate code just to say that we have no regulator at all for a > given device. That could also be handled with a helper function which > registers a fixed regulator and only takes the regulator_consumer_supply > as an argument. Would that be ok for you? All you're actually doing in this code is adding a function to register a new type of regulator which is exactly equivalent to what the existing regulators provide - there's nothing particularly wrong with the helper function but defining an entirely new regulator type for it doesn't seem useful.