On Fri, 2017-05-05 at 22:09 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: > On 2017-05-05 20:52, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > On 05/05/17 11:39, Jan Kiszka wrote: > > > On 2017-05-05 11:54, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2017-05-05 at 08:31 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>>>> + if (st->reg) > > > > > + *val = > > > > > regulator_get_voltage(st->reg) > > > > > / 1000; > > > > > + else > > > > > + *val = st->va_millivolt; > > > > > + > > > > > > > > Another way is to not just hard code the value, but create a > > > > fixed > > > > voltage regulator out of it. In this case you will have one way > > > > to get > > > > its value. > > > > > > That's a good idea. > > > > Agreed. Make sure to cc Mark Brown though as I'll need an ack from > > him > > to have a fixed reg hiding in here. > > After diving deeper, it not longer appears to be a good idea: > > - pulls in a non-obvious requirement for CONFIG_REGULATOR on platforms > that otherwise do not need it Why is it a problem? > - requires complex life-cycle management so that the fixed regulator > is > instantiated on the first device creation and removed with the last > one Who cares if you register more than one? > We better go with the static value assignment. > > I'll move that regulator_get_voltage into the probing function which > will simplify things further (va_millivolt will carry the value for > both > cases). Yes, it would be the way, if system has it's fixed. But in this case you need to threat regulator as optional if we are going to enable/disable them for PM. -- Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Intel Finland Oy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
