From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Brown Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: Provide dummy supply support Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 18:27:21 +0000 Message-ID: <20111101182720.GH10029@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> References: <1319833618-25190-1-git-send-email-s.hauer@pengutronix.de> <20111028215931.GA30366@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <20111028224757.GG23421@pengutronix.de> <201111011350.17425.vapier@gentoo.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201111011350.17425.vapier@gentoo.org> Sender: linux-sh-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Mike Frysinger Cc: Sascha Hauer , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Liam Girdwood , Linus Walleij , Paul Mundt , Tony Lindgren , linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, uclinux-dist-devel@blackfin.uclinux.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 01:50:14PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Friday 28 October 2011 18:47:57 Sascha Hauer wrote: > > > We already have a dummy regulator driver and a fixed voltage regulator > > > driver, we shouldn't be adding a third implementation of the same thing. > > > Just use the fixed voltage regulator for this. > > I explained in my mail why I think that the current implementation of > > the dummy regulator is not suitable for things apart from debugging. > your complaints seem to be specific to how the dummy regulator gets hooked in > and not in the specific regulator implementation. so it seems like the right > thing would be to split the kconfig knobs: Quite. Sascha, your mail doesn't refer to the implementation of the regulator itself at all. Nothing in your changelog even mentions that you're introducing a new regulator driver. I think there's a big abstraction understanding failure here, reading your changelog I'm not sure you understand the existing mechainsms that are in place. You say: | This patch allows a board to register dummy supplies for devices | which need a regulator but which is not software controllable | on this board. but this is exactly the use case the fixed voltage regulator is there for. > config REGULATOR_DUMMY > - bool "Provide a dummy regulator if regulator lookups fail" > + bool "Provide a dummy regulator" > +config REGULATOR_DUMMY_FALLBACK > + bool "Fallback to dummy regulator if lookup fails" > + depends on REGULATOR_DUMMY As I think I said earlier I'd use the fixed regulator for this, all Sascha's actually doing here is adding a wrapper to simplify registration of that.