From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755161Ab2AYGXI (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Jan 2012 01:23:08 -0500 Received: from hqemgate04.nvidia.com ([216.228.121.35]:14866 "EHLO hqemgate04.nvidia.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751833Ab2AYGXF (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Jan 2012 01:23:05 -0500 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by hqnvupgp07.nvidia.com on Tue, 24 Jan 2012 22:23:02 -0800 Message-ID: <4F1F9FA1.4000000@nvidia.com> Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:52:25 +0530 From: Laxman Dewangan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101208 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Brown CC: "lrg@ti.com" , "jedu@slimlogic.co.uk" , "sameo@linux.intel.com" , "gg@slimlogic.co.uk" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH V1] regulator: tps65910: Sleep control through external inputs References: <1327395919-32378-1-git-send-email-ldewangan@nvidia.com> <20120124115855.GC14888@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <4F1EA1E8.90104@nvidia.com> <20120124122411.GB31839@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <4F1EA608.3020204@nvidia.com> <20120124212144.GG1135@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> In-Reply-To: <20120124212144.GG1135@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 25 January 2012 02:51 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > * PGP Signed by an unknown key > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 06:07:28PM +0530, Laxman Dewangan wrote: > >> E.g. If cpu power is in VDDCTRL rail and if DVFS mechanism of SOC >> wants that cpu rails to be ON, it will make the control signal >> active and if it wants to disable the rail then it will deactivate >> it. >> The toggling of the control lines depends on how the power >> management controller is designed for a given SOC and how it >> manages. > Hrm, right. This isn't something that the regulator API usually deals > with - normally we just deal with things that Linux owns and assume that > if the hardware is wired up for something else to own the regulator it > will deal with that completely including the configuration. If we do > need to do something here we need to make sure that the normal regulator > code doesn't try to do anything clever with the regulator which messes > up the other device. But I guess this doesn't really have a problem > with that, someone can always add a further patch optionally specifying > GPIOs which won't conflict with this approach. Thanks, I will send patch v2 having all fixes which is discuss in patch V1. > * Unknown Key > * 0x6E30FDDD