On 05/11/2016 08:05 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
On Wed 11 May 16:30 PDT 2016, Andrew Duggan wrote:
Hi Bjorn,
On 05/10/2016 08:49 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
[..]
So either we duplicate the regulator support in spi/i2c or we make them
optional in the core driver. Sounds like you prefer the prior, i.e. v1
of my patch.
Yes, after all this I think it makes sense to put regulator support in the
spi/i2c transports like in your v1 patch. I essentially duplicated the irq
handling code in both transports so I would be ok with duplicating regulator
support too. It doesn't seem like that much code. But, if this is too much
duplication we could create some sort of common file and put the common irq
and regulator support functions which could be called in the transports.
Similar to how rmi_2d_sensor.c defines some common functions shared between
rmi_f11 and rmi_f12.
Sounds reasonable, I'm okay with this. Did you have any comments on the
implementation I had in v1?
I tested on a device which has an always on regulators so I didn't add
anything to device tree for the device. But, it returned 0 when it
didn't find anything which seems to be the correct behavior. Is there an
easy way to avoid sleeping for 10ms when there are no regulators? Maybe
check if both the supplies .consumer pointer is null?
Andrew
@Dmitry, do you want me to resend v1?
Regards,
Bjorn
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
