From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757758Ab0FBKHW (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Jun 2010 06:07:22 -0400 Received: from opensource.wolfsonmicro.com ([80.75.67.52]:41191 "EHLO opensource2.wolfsonmicro.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751694Ab0FBKHU (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Jun 2010 06:07:20 -0400 Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 11:07:18 +0100 From: Mark Brown To: Linus WALLEIJ Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Bengt JONSSON , Sundar R IYER Subject: Re: RFC: Regulator Framework Voltage Setting Message-ID: <20100602100718.GB13983@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Cookie: //GO.SYSIN DD *, DOODAH, DOODAH User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 11:18:00AM +0200, Linus WALLEIJ wrote: > Our questions: > - Is this the correct interpretation of the current functionality? > - Is the proposed behaviour what you would expect? > - Any other problems to consider? The current expectation is that a consumer that really needs a voltage setting will have exclusive use of the regulator and won't share it with other consumers. There was some support for combining constraints from multiple consumers originally but it got removed due to requests from David Brownell (there's not actually much demand for this feature anyway, finding devices which support but do not required DVS is actually quite hard and generally the power requirments for shared rails get fixed at hardware build tiem).