On 19/05/17 17:01, Mark Brown wrote:
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 07:01:07AM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
Somewhat of a pain to basically use a random value as the default going
forward. Presumably this isn't the first ever ACPI table to need to
tell use about a reference voltage...
Mark, seen anything similar?
I see https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/arm64/arm-acpi.txt suggests
that mapping to regulators isn't expected to ever happen...
There's multiple different camps trying to use ACPI for very different
things. There's the server people on both x86 and ARM who want to use
standard ACPI and nothing but with the power management all hidden in
the AML but there's also the embedded x86 people who have the same needs
as DT platforms but find themselves unable to use DT so have to map all
the DT support into ACPI. This has been accepted in areas that clearly
don't overlap with areas where there are existing ACPI bindings for
things, power management is one area where there are clear bindings
though.
Thanks Mark,
Just to clarify what do we do here, where a regulator is providing a
reference voltage and there appears to be no information on it in ACPI?
Right now we are just going with a fixed value that matches the board
someone has, but that's hardly sustainable.
Jonathan
--
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
