From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754316Ab2AHQ6n (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Jan 2012 11:58:43 -0500 Received: from opensource.wolfsonmicro.com ([80.75.67.52]:53810 "EHLO opensource.wolfsonmicro.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753985Ab2AHQ6l (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Jan 2012 11:58:41 -0500 Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2012 08:58:24 -0800 From: Mark Brown To: Laxman Dewangan Cc: Laxman Dewangan , "lrg@slimlogic.co.uk" , "linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH V1] TPS62360: Add tps62360 regulator driver Message-ID: <20120108165819.GB29065@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> References: <1325668818-1096-1-git-send-email-ldewangan@nvidia.com> <20120105062919.GI11867@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <96C9D994977DD0439FB6D3FE3B13DD907DBD3A9E9B@BGMAIL01.nvidia.com> <20120106185755.GC2893@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <96C9D994977DD0439FB6D3FE3B13DD907DBD3AA0DE@BGMAIL01.nvidia.com> <20120107191047.GA3590@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <96C9D994977DD0439FB6D3FE3B13DD907DBD3AA0E4@BGMAIL01.nvidia.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <96C9D994977DD0439FB6D3FE3B13DD907DBD3AA0E4@BGMAIL01.nvidia.com> X-Cookie: You will get what you deserve. 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 Sun, Jan 08, 2012 at 01:12:47PM +0530, Laxman Dewangan wrote: > > Taking multiple different regulator_init_data is definitely not what we > > want, there's a whole bunch of information in there, not just the > > voltages. You should just use platform data to specify the GPIOs (and > > a set of voltages if you go with that approach). > How do you pass the voltages along with gpios? If I understand correctly > then it may be wither in range form or discrete form. > Like in range form 500-700 for VSEL:00, 710-800 VSEL:01 etc. > In discrete form VSEL00:500, 540, 550.. > For, VSEL01, VSEL00:510, 900, Why would you have ranges? If you've set the VSEL pins to a particular value I'd expect the chip to produce whatever voltage is programmed for that VSEL. > In range form, the disadvantages is that, most of time, the voltage > requirement is surrounding operating voltage and so it will use only > one combination of VSEL in most of time and will not get the benefit. > The discrete form have long list of voltage and filling table is pain. > Also need to maintain the big list of lookuptable to select voltage > configuration register. You only have four possible VSELs so I don't see a concern there.