From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753482AbcFBQEi (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Jun 2016 12:04:38 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-f54.google.com ([209.85.220.54]:34349 "EHLO mail-pa0-f54.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753457AbcFBQEg (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Jun 2016 12:04:36 -0400 Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 09:04:32 -0700 From: Bjorn Andersson To: Mark Brown Cc: Srinivas Kandagatla , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Liam Girdwood , linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 3/3] regulator: qcom_smd: add linear range to pm8941 lnldo Message-ID: <20160602160432.GF1256@tuxbot> References: <1464862996-3147-1-git-send-email-srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org> <1464862996-3147-4-git-send-email-srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org> <20160602144932.GK2282@sirena.org.uk> <57504966.6030800@linaro.org> <20160602155032.GL2282@sirena.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160602155032.GL2282@sirena.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu 02 Jun 08:50 PDT 2016, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 03:57:42PM +0100, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote: > > On 02/06/16 15:49, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > Why is this better than using a separate set of ops for the driver? > > > Am ok either way, it would be just few more lines for separate set of ops. > > It's more natural to use a separate set of ops, and we can optimise a > few things if we know the regulator is a fixed voltage one. In my view a fixed regulator is a thing that when you turn it on you get a predefined voltage, but iirc we actually need to send of a set-voltage request for the singly supported voltage on this ldo (which both implementations do today...). That's why I suggested Srini to do it this way, but maybe my interpretation of "fixed" is inaccurate? Regards, Bjorn