From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932124Ab1JSOuE (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Oct 2011 10:50:04 -0400 Received: from opensource.wolfsonmicro.com ([80.75.67.52]:57888 "EHLO opensource.wolfsonmicro.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750944Ab1JSOuD (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Oct 2011 10:50:03 -0400 Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 15:50:00 +0100 From: Mark Brown To: Shawn Guo Cc: Rajendra Nayak , grant.likely@secretlab.ca, patches@linaro.org, tony@atomide.com, devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, lrg@ti.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] regulator: helper routine to extract regulator_init_data Message-ID: <20111019144959.GA31850@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> References: <1318263578-7407-1-git-send-email-rnayak@ti.com> <1318263578-7407-4-git-send-email-rnayak@ti.com> <20111018132032.GD30703@S2100-06.ap.freescale.net> <4E9EB61C.1040207@ti.com> <20111019144215.GA32007@S2100-06.ap.freescale.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20111019144215.GA32007@S2100-06.ap.freescale.net> X-Cookie: You dialed 5483. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:42:16PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote: *Please* delete irrelevant quotes from mails. > On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 05:05:56PM +0530, Rajendra Nayak wrote: > > Yes, it seems like a good idea given that most drivers seem to blindly > > pass the regulator_init_data onto regulator_register, however there > > are cases like the twl regulator driver which seems to peek into the > > constraints passed from the board to make sure it drops anything that > > the hardware does not support, > I'm not sure why twl works in that way. Is it a sign that those > configuration peeked by twl regulator driver should be encoded in twl > regulator driver itself instead of being passed from the board? Or > why the board does not pass something matching driver/hardware > capability to save that peek? It's completely unneeded but harmless, it's there because there were a large number of discussions going on with the original author and it was easier to merge the code.