[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
On 3/29/2012 4:11 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 05:06:48PM -0700, Michael Bohan wrote:Are you aware of any other examples of submitted drivers with Device Tree support that implement regulator devices that optionally have an upstream supply? I looked at your tree recently and couldn't see any such cases.No, pretty much any drivers which optionally have an upstream supply would be buggy and should therefore run into trouble during review.
Can you please elaborate on why this is a bad design? We have always used this model in the past, and the regulator framework is happy to support it.
We have identical hardware blocks that can be positioned to take a supply or not. So are you proposing we copy / paste our driver so that in one case rdesc->supply_name is NULL and the other case a valid supply name? I'm guessing you aren't implying this, but what alternatives do you suggest to support such a model?
In the thread mentioned by Rajendra, part of the motivation for putting the supply_name in the driver struct was 'no code changes in the individual drivers'. But that's exactly what we have here.
http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-omap/msg58673.htmlI was hoping that we could continue to treat regulator supplies as normal supplies, but somehow allow the framework to determine whether a regulator supply exists or not in the Device Tree configuration so the driver doesn't have to.
Thanks, Mike -- Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html