On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 10:02:14AM -0800, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 3:05 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Why not do this at the time we apply the voltage? That would seem to be > > more robust, doing it in a separate place means that we might update one > > bit of code and not the other or might change the execution path so that > > one gets run and the other doesn't. > I do share your concerns about having this logic mirrored here is > risky, unfortunately the regulator object is created upon request from > a consumer; so it is not available when regulator_register() calls > set_machine_constraints(). Oh, hang on - that's what you mean by a regulator object... I don't think this fixes the problem you think it does. What is the actual problem you're trying to fix here? The min_uV and max_uV on a consumer struct are supposed to be the request from that consumer, they should only be set if the consumer actually made a request for a voltage range. > An alternative is to drop the conditional setting of > REGULATOR_CHANGE_VOLTAGE from of_regulator.c and force the regulator > drivers to set this flag explicitly; to avoid the difference in > behavior depending on configuration. Why would having each individual driver open code things help?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
