From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753172AbcBJTVM (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Feb 2016 14:21:12 -0500 Received: from mezzanine.sirena.org.uk ([106.187.55.193]:44880 "EHLO mezzanine.sirena.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752567AbcBJTVK (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Feb 2016 14:21:10 -0500 Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 19:21:01 +0000 From: Mark Brown To: Stephen Boyd Cc: Georgi Djakov , Lina Iyer , lgirdwood@gmail.com, andy.gross@linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20160210192101.GE13270@sirena.org.uk> References: <1455023549-30836-1-git-send-email-georgi.djakov@linaro.org> <20160209222154.GB1646@linaro.org> <56BB32A9.7090002@linaro.org> <20160210183651.GH30978@codeaurora.org> <20160210184327.GB13270@sirena.org.uk> <20160210190436.GI30978@codeaurora.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="s8uQA167RD2xhjBe" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160210190436.GI30978@codeaurora.org> X-Cookie: Nothing happens. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2a01:348:6:8808:fab::3 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: broonie@sirena.org.uk Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] regulator: qcom-saw: Add support for SAW regulators 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 --s8uQA167RD2xhjBe Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline 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. --s8uQA167RD2xhjBe Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWu42cAAoJECTWi3JdVIfQZyIH/AzjcX1c4rsa0FMnmaNzij3k IZBdXS/uQ5SHliqiqOXcWkkHeZgywnjgc5wtQDghMZv+wf0FsWnQlbsceJQo3/fm CZphV2UTxjQmYJuqxg7/5N3V4/3Oc9i3NwLvVObmkRzxJHCZAHPqhgd60UyZTSHC GALl77x8tK9jz1fz0o1JYDdr8OHGGI5wsy/YwKE26eZqX335l4afycLVFNUf/iG0 1znDGdxicPDtbeElgUCV9pAniAiU/TQqw3pqDaz9KTxCM/Rq/uafcFZGSQKj8z1Z 6SCJS2/ATfmYwhDbx9OJZQLT4vmzOeel+kybBapBKJXSAiJb7kMvRuD4bmc3hpI= =tfAP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --s8uQA167RD2xhjBe--