From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752256AbaIJRCR (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Sep 2014 13:02:17 -0400 Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.18]:54600 "EHLO mout.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751082AbaIJRCQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Sep 2014 13:02:16 -0400 Message-ID: <54108939.5050208@gmx.net> Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 19:24:09 +0200 From: Stefan Wahren User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Rutland , "festevam@gmail.com" CC: "lgirdwood@gmail.com" , "broonie@kernel.org" , "shawn.guo@linaro.org" , "robh+dt@kernel.org" , Pawel Moll , "ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk" , "galak@codeaurora.org" , "stefan.wahren@i2se.com" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 2/3] ARM: regulator: add Freescale MXS regulator driver References: <1410089869-6611-1-git-send-email-info@lategoodbye.de> <1410089869-6611-3-git-send-email-info@lategoodbye.de> <20140909182211.GG3896@leverpostej> <540F523D.4010904@lategoodbye.de> <20140910141853.GA4994@leverpostej> In-Reply-To: <20140910141853.GA4994@leverpostej> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:PeY6MSEjqT/iHQHmU6E5Z+zfXFlpRAsFb4SAEjS/yOUQoa0g3yF cBRHUNca4VL1+9Eu6Dwc8BEpUgTSsycud5KwTpCi1ttao1W6IkYWOha1WI7nFZl40wI7rjm bqHl90I1s7qMLY/VD4K+I6pPkx3j3euVIY2ltX0G+b/pjpIHPthVTZeYDH3I+HxJb6Pgfjm wl6LVO0Jdjak6Vdg2Jx4g== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1; Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, Am 10.09.2014 16:18, schrieb Mark Rutland: >[...] > >>>> + of_property_read_u32(np, "mxs-default-microvolt", >>>> + &val); >>>> + >>>> + if (val) >>>> + mxs_set_voltage(rdev, val, val, NULL); >>> >>> As I mentioned in my comments on the binding, I'd like to know why this >>> is necessary and if it is why it shouldn't be a standardised property. >> >> From my understanding the standardised properties only defines a range, >> but no default state of the regulators. If the initialization from the >> bootloader or a hardcoded initialization in the driver is okay then the >> property is not necessary. > > Sure. My questions was why it is necessary to preconfigure the > regulators at all rather than why it is necessary to do so in this > manner. > > Mark. > sorry i don't have a clue. In the original code there isn't a comment about the reason. Currently there is no init of the vddio regulator by the kernel and everything works fine. @Fabio: Do you have any doubts? Stefan