From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
Cc: Georgi Djakov <georgi.djakov@linaro.org>,
Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@linaro.org>,
lgirdwood@gmail.com, andy.gross@linaro.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] regulator: qcom-saw: Add support for SAW regulators
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 19:21:01 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160210192101.GE13270@sirena.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160210190436.GI30978@codeaurora.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1299 bytes --]
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 11:04:36AM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> I don't follow the rest of your mail though. Are you suggesting
> that in this case we put the regulator control into the PMIC
> regulator driver (qcom_spmi-regulator.c) and then use a
> syscon/regmap there to change the voltages inside the MMIO bus?
> That may work but we're going to need to update the binding for
> the SPMI regulator driver then.
No, why would you want to do that? I'm saying that if the device has a
SPMI interface make that the primary interface for the driver.
Presumably the SPMI bus abstraction is capable of representing this
fairly directly.
> I'm not really excited about the binding we have here either.
> We're going to have two places in DT where we've created a
> regulator for the same physical regulator. One will be a child of
> the SAW node on the MMIO bus, and another will be a child of the
> PMIC on the SPMI/SSBI bus. In the end, they're both the same
> regulator, so any constraints on one node will need to be applied
> to the other node as well.
Are you saying that this is a problem with the driver that just got
merged? We got to v4 before I applied the driver... My understanding
was that this is a driver for a new regulator type not a duplicate
interface for existing regulator.
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-02-10 19:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-02-09 13:12 Georgi Djakov
2016-02-09 18:20 ` Applied "regulator: qcom-saw: Add support for SAW regulators" to the regulator tree Mark Brown
2016-02-09 22:21 ` [PATCH v4] regulator: qcom-saw: Add support for SAW regulators Lina Iyer
2016-02-10 10:13 ` Mark Brown
2016-02-10 16:42 ` Lina Iyer
2016-02-10 18:54 ` Mark Brown
2016-02-10 12:52 ` Georgi Djakov
2016-02-10 18:36 ` Stephen Boyd
2016-02-10 18:43 ` Mark Brown
2016-02-10 19:04 ` Stephen Boyd
2016-02-10 19:21 ` Mark Brown [this message]
2016-02-10 22:46 ` Stephen Boyd
2016-02-11 10:17 ` Georgi Djakov
2016-02-12 0:17 ` Stephen Boyd
2016-02-12 23:03 ` Mark Brown
2016-02-19 16:07 ` Mark Brown
2016-03-15 9:29 ` Applied "regulator: qcom-saw: Add support for SAW regulators" to the regulator tree Mark Brown
2016-03-15 9:30 ` Mark Brown
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160210192101.GE13270@sirena.org.uk \
--to=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=andy.gross@linaro.org \
--cc=georgi.djakov@linaro.org \
--cc=lgirdwood@gmail.com \
--cc=lina.iyer@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sboyd@codeaurora.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®