On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 15:24:33 +0000 Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 02:02:02PM +0100, Alban Bedel wrote: > > > +This binding allow creating a group of regulators for use with simple > > +drivers that only expect a single power supply. Additionally it is > > +possible to enforce the enable ordering to create simple power up > > +sequences. > > Absoutely not, this sort of scripting is not sensible - if the consumer > device has multiple supplies the consumer device should be working with > them independently and if the consumer has ordering constraints it needs > to enforce them itself. Trying to solve this problem with a bodge in > the regulator API just isn't the right place, leaving aside the above > most power sequences involve things other than regulators like clocks > and reset signals so just doing things purely at the regulator API level > isn't ging to solve the problem. > > Please look for the generic power sequence stuff that was getting > discussed a while back and try to resurrect that if you feel there's a > compelling reason to have this functionality without doing it for > drivers. Honestly my primary aim wasn't the sequencing, but rather to increase the usefulness of generic drivers. Generic driver generally only manipulate a single supply, however many hardware might have more, and won't need any specific power up ordering. Having to write a full new driver just because of an extra supply doesn't seems to make much sense to me. As alternative solution to this problem I though about allowing a list of regulator for the supplies: vin-supply = <®1>, <®2>; The API could still return a single consumer but it would operate on all the regulators in the list instead of just one. Would that be a better solution? Alban
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
