Hi Mauro, On Wednesday 17 April 2013 11:36:39 Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > Em Wed, 17 Apr 2013 14:55:03 +0100 Mark Brown escreveu: > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 08:04:52PM +0200, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote: > > > It's probably more clean to provide a dummy clock/regulator in a host > > > driver (platform) than to add something in a sub-device drivers that > > > would resolve which resources should be requested and which not. > > > > Yes, that's the general theory for regulators at least - it allows the > > device driver to just trundle along and not worry about how the board is > > hooked up. The other issue it resolves that you didn't mention is that > > it avoids just ignoring errors which isn't terribly clever. > > I agree. Adding dummy clock/regulator at the host platform driver makes > sense, as the platform driver knows how the board is hooked up; keeping > it at the I2C driver doesn't make sense, so the code needs to be moved > away from it. > > Laurent, > > Could you please work on a patch moving that code to the host platform > driver? I think that Mark's point was that the regulators should be provided by platform code (in the generic sense, it could be DT on ARM, board code, or a USB bridge driver for a webcam that uses the mt9p031 sensor) and used by the sensor driver. That's exactly what my mt9p031 patch does. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
