On 05/05/17 21:32, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > 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? It seems unlikely this is the first ever case of needing proper regulator support on ACPI platforms. Mark/Liam, an precedents that you know of? > >> - 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. > -- 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
