On 11 March 2015 at 16:23, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 08:20:43AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > Please don't send upstream e-mail to my work account, I use this address > pretty consistently for upstream. Upstream mail to my work account > frequently ends up unread. Sorry about that, I did exactly opposite of this earlier :( >> On 6 March 2015 at 11:19, Pi-Cheng Chen <pi-cheng.chen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On 5 March 2015 at 17:55, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > About putting >> > those stuff into regulator driver, I think you mean creating a >> > "virtual regulator >> > device" and put all the voltage controlling complex into the driver, right? >> > Maybe it's a good idea in this case, but I am sure if this kind of >> > virtual regulator is acceptable. > >> @Mark: Is this allowed to create virtual regulator for a CPU ? > > I don't really know what the above means or what problem it's supposed > to solve. On mediatek platform, they need to configure two regulators in order to change DVFS state of the big cluster. The generic cpufreq-dt driver and earlier OPP bindings have support for a single regulator only and so what Pi-cheng tried to do is, - Configure one of the regulators using cpufreq-dt - And other one using cpufreq frequency change notifiers This looks awkward.. What I suggested was to create another virtual regulator for CPU which will eventually configure both the regulators. And so the question that such virtual regulators are allowed or not. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
