From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754801AbbFEQ6f (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Jun 2015 12:58:35 -0400 Received: from mezzanine.sirena.org.uk ([106.187.55.193]:44006 "EHLO mezzanine.sirena.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751726AbbFEQ6e (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Jun 2015 12:58:34 -0400 Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 17:58:29 +0100 From: Mark Brown To: Laxman Dewangan Cc: lgirdwood@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cfreeman@nvidia.com, abrestic@chromium.org, afrid@nvidia.com Message-ID: <20150605165829.GY14071@sirena.org.uk> References: <1432737621-27590-1-git-send-email-ldewangan@nvidia.com> <20150528135245.GU21577@sirena.org.uk> <5567FE68.5070006@nvidia.com> <20150529094941.GL21577@sirena.org.uk> <5571A5E3.3070700@nvidia.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="EbMW37mHYzw0qvy8" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5571A5E3.3070700@nvidia.com> X-Cookie: The end of labor is to gain leisure. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 94.175.94.161 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: broonie@sirena.org.uk Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: core: add support to get VSEL register from hw driver X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:24:06 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mezzanine.sirena.org.uk) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --EbMW37mHYzw0qvy8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 07:06:35PM +0530, Laxman Dewangan wrote: > On Friday 29 May 2015 03:19 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > >The problem will be there when external controller use the DVS pin for DVFS > >and need two register address here. In this case, I think external > >controller need to get information from different mechanism rather than via > >regulator driver to avoid complication on regulator driver/framework. > >Probably, it's definitely getting complicated (though in this case where > >we only need one register we ought to be more able to manage it, not > >that I have bright ideas right now). > Are you accepting this patch? I am not much clear on the conclusion and > hence my question is. > Is anything pending from me to provide any information? I thought we agreed that this interface was a bad idea due to the need to coordinate between the changes in register and the external device using the value? --EbMW37mHYzw0qvy8 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVcdU0AAoJECTWi3JdVIfQmpEH/RhCGDrOCL52oIenm9V2T2rr h+gvzzKTSisns+ljXd41+/2SD5eX0XSPHn+UKHkjxY82HlR5ABOy96CWJ5+OWBJI UzlyQYF8G0CeL45r6tjd3bE3ah9osdaEpEGeu7nitZZsGfwHHxQBIHIKpSiXHvCA ZHWg7dZo9YE/w9xmlDrH87lbe3maZXsP31TGXJdkYIAg6Ulx4bJfFIMxyys8e5Go OT8pjAZjSMTzTUTEcKQHAScopnYwRIZtqtZP3kzNQ6DxPqasi0PMQYz7JXGMhqLy bNWdHHjggiUD/4jO+EVMOyikDwmt3STh7MJ9lJA+gps1uD09XdCkQ3GGjSNUfJA= =HAyC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --EbMW37mHYzw0qvy8--