On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 02:41:26PM +0000, Adam Thomson wrote: > On 23 July 2018 00:28, Daniel Kurtz wrote: > > Provide a new device property to let such systems specify a different > > VDDIO if needed (e.g., 1.8V). > I'm not sure what the general view on this is. In the past it was suggested > the regulator framework was the way to go to pass this kind of information, > but obviously ACPI platforms don't tend to use it. > Mark, what is your feeling on this? Would you be in favour of some kind of > fixed voltage regulator representation, similar to the patch for the AMD > platform (ASoC: AMD: Add a fix voltage regulator for DA7219 and ADAU7002), > albeit tweaked to avoid asynchronous probe() issues, or is this a reasonable > route? Personally in my mind, and in an ideal world, I'd prefer just one method > for retrieving this data in the codec driver, but that may not be sensible. Yeah, keeping things consistent if we can seems like a definite win which points towards using regulators here. One other thing that concerns me with using device properties here is what exactly we'd be expecting to set them - I'd not expect system integrators to suddenly start adding such properties.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
