On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 11:56:08AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > I cornered Rob and Mark Rutland a little bit about this at ELC today > (sorry!). Neither of them was a huge ran of adding a pseudo device. > Rob suggested that Mark Brown might be the best person to give > direction here. Mark Brown: any thoughts? I glanced at this briefly and couldn't really understand what it was supposed to do from a quick glance but I do tend to agree that it's too complex and confusing. Quite what the virtual regulator is supposed to represent or how it is used is distinctly non-obvious. > Potentially we could also make this type of thing a core regulator property: Yes, that seems like the obvious solution if it's in the core. Someone would need to write the code of course. > Another option is to add no device tree code at all and add code to > the devfreq / cpufreq drivers used on this device. In order to do > this cleanly I think we'd need to extend the regulator core's > notification scheme to introduce a new event: > REGULATOR_EVENT_VOLTAGE_CHANGING that's called _before_ a voltage > change happened. That only works if it's the same thing scaling both voltages. That might be true most of the time but is it true all of the time? If it is then that's great.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
