From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757904AbcIPStU (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Sep 2016 14:49:20 -0400 Received: from mezzanine.sirena.org.uk ([106.187.55.193]:38978 "EHLO mezzanine.sirena.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752537AbcIPStM (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Sep 2016 14:49:12 -0400 Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 19:48:57 +0100 From: Mark Brown To: Matthias Kaehlcke Cc: lgirdwood@gmail.com, Douglas Anderson , briannorris@chromium.org, javier@dowhile0.org, robh+dt@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20160916184857.GC10189@sirena.org.uk> References: <20160906190524.GB79728@google.com> <20160912185633.GH27946@sirena.org.uk> <20160913172140.GC62872@google.com> <20160915143945.GJ27974@sirena.org.uk> <20160915180223.GE62872@google.com> <20160916163253.GA10189@sirena.org.uk> <20160916183145.GF62872@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="bKyqfOwhbdpXa4YI" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160916183145.GF62872@google.com> X-Cookie: You are number 6! Who is number one? User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2a01:348:6:8808:fab::3 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: broonie@sirena.org.uk Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] regulator: Prevent falling too fast X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:24:06 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on mezzanine.sirena.org.uk); Unknown failure Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --bKyqfOwhbdpXa4YI Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 11:31:45AM -0700, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: > El Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 05:32:53PM +0100 Mark Brown ha dit: > > It does sound rather like we ought to be representing this chip > > directly in case it needs other workarounds. > Ok, we'll consider this. It seems we can drop this patch since the > regulator core is not the best place to address this problem. Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't - the above is a question about how we describe this stuff. --bKyqfOwhbdpXa4YI Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJX3D6YAAoJECTWi3JdVIfQ6fwH/1oksFxevJGIApefJHXXObP0 lX8gBDPLpzG/7oy0XunJRxEvKpagAr6g/DgbmfAK025N/nLeZr3+olYKFcu99iY2 33s+6rl4+gg/8488h4Ivkt3NAdGA6vIHvE3iIdBwWGJLVep7e8tIJIC/ZpjJjSVo zIZwomaiwxJt0o5MNjImkSGr/x0e/ZFOsbqLIcuJHhxjBQ4cirtkjHtbgJRpPTyc 7MEvjFs/NiwzJ/asQTtlYpgfMh3pl1ghe1moPKjsAOOBcQtIqr/MtGKwZgBqfgaC Nj6zAVdoDuhw2545ww66XEybo+evoFArpSzJ0I2QtwnkAgsNpZjjUb6FUUFW95M= =EJhT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --bKyqfOwhbdpXa4YI--