From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tony Lindgren Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] arm/dts: regulator: Add tps65910 device tree data Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 13:16:34 -0700 Message-ID: <20120824201634.GZ11011@atomide.com> References: <1345547850-29761-1-git-send-email-anilkumar@ti.com> <1345547850-29761-2-git-send-email-anilkumar@ti.com> <5033ADC5.4030002@wwwdotorg.org> <20120821163805.GW7995@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <5033CDDB.808@wwwdotorg.org> <20120821180847.GC7995@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org ([204.13.248.71]:46968 "EHLO mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932890Ab2HXUQj (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Aug 2012 16:16:39 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120821180847.GC7995@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Mark Brown Cc: Stephen Warren , AnilKumar Ch , linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org * Mark Brown [120821 11:09]: > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:05:15PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: > > On 08/21/2012 10:38 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > This isn't the general view for the regualtor API - we generally > > > want all regulators to be registered in order to allow us to see > > > what's going on with things even if we've not figured them out from > > > software. > > > Oh, I said the above specifically because when I added the LDO > > configuration for the regulators that weren't used to the Tegra .dts > > files, you told me to remove it, based on the comment I put in there > > that they weren't used on the board. > > The board shouldn't have to define the regulators, the regulator driver > really ought to be able to figure out that they're there by itself if > there's no configuration based purely on knowing which chip is there. > From that point of view it's OK for the chip .dtsi to have them (though > ideally the driver wouldn't *need* that either) which was what was > happening here. So I assume no changes needed here then? Regards, Tony