From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754975Ab2LMLze (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Dec 2012 06:55:34 -0500 Received: from mail-bk0-f46.google.com ([209.85.214.46]:41900 "EHLO mail-bk0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753580Ab2LMLzb (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Dec 2012 06:55:31 -0500 Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 11:55:24 +0000 From: Lee Jones To: Mark Brown Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, arnd@arndb.de, linus.walleij@stericsson.com, ulf.hansson@linaro.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/12] regulator: gpio-regulator: Demote GPIO Regulator driver to start later Message-ID: <20121213115524.GI27617@gmail.com> References: <1355129761-8088-1-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <1355129761-8088-2-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <20121210140751.GB6103@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <20121210142836.GG9362@gmail.com> <20121210143141.GG6103@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20121210143141.GG6103@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> 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 Mon, 10 Dec 2012, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 02:28:36PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > > On Mon, 10 Dec 2012, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > This really isn't a good solution, especially not for a system that's DT > > > based - on a DT system we can tell if there should be a GPIO present so > > > we should be able to defer only when there's something that might > > > provide the GPIO later on. > > > Understood, but what's the solution for non-DT systems? > > Provide a fixed regulator or something, perhaps we need a "definitely > does not exist" regulator to help with this. For every board you help > with a sequencing bodge you're probably going to break another that > needs different sequencing; for that matter it's not like GPIO > controlled regulators are exclusively used for MMC, or that MMC > exclusively uses GPIO - doing this for only one regulator is a bit of a > red flag. I understand your logic, hence why I wrote such a lengthy commit message. However, I'm not sure I see a logical way around it. Asking all users of MMCI to provide a not-regulator to declare that a secondary regulator isn't available seems a little unreasonable to me. Is there anything else we can do? -- Lee Jones Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog