On Wed, 2017-08-09 at 14:24 +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On Tue, 01 Aug 2017 20:24:31 +0300 > Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, 2017-08-01 at 12:15 -0500, David Lechner wrote: > > > On 08/01/2017 11:41 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2017-08-01 at 11:21 -0500, David Lechner wrote: > > > > > On 08/01/2017 10:45 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + /* Use hard coded value for reference voltage > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > ACPI > > > > > > > > > case */ > > > > > > > > > + if (ACPI_COMPANION(&spi->dev)) > > > > > > > > > + st->vref_mv = > > > > > > > > > TI_ADS7950_VA_MV_ACPI_DEFAULT; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Instead of checking or ACPI, you could just say "if we > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > dummy > > > > > > > > regulator, then use the default value". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agreed. Sounds sensible to me. Hopefully in DT people > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > provide the right regulator, but chances are this won't > > > > > > > always happen. > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no call like > > > > > > regulator_is_dummy() > > > > > > (and, looking into the code of regulator framework, can't > > > > > > be) > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you elaborate a bit, maybe I'm missing something > > > > > > obvious? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I haven't tested this, but shouldn't regulator_get_voltage() > > > > > return > > > > > an > > > > > error for a dummy regulator? You could use this as your > > > > > test. > > > > > > > > While it would work it's very fragile. > > Hmm. The optional get is what we have always used when a regulator > has been added to a drivers bindings after the initial merge. > In that case there is little choice (particularly as the one > added is often the power supply regulator rather than anything > related to scale. > > If you want to do the scale thing, then you want to not expose > the attribute at all if the scale isn't available. So do > it by swapping the iio_chan_spec array for one without the > scale bit set for the relevant channels. > > So if we want to support as described (using the default) > then the optional regulator get is the only way to go that > I can think of... > > To a degree, as it was originally in the bindings for this one > tough luck if it's not specified. Someone didn't implement > the dt properly... So I wouldn't do the fall back at all. ...and what is the conclusion to the patch itself? I didn't see any other way is to check ACPI_HANDLE() for ACPI case and leave the rest as is. -- 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
