On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 11:28:31AM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > 1. A regulator that can (in principle) change state, i.e., switch on and > off. Such a regulator is good to keep for the runtime to power up and down > the card. > 2. A regulator, that cannot switch, but at least can tell its supplied > voltage is used ones to read out supported voltages and released again. This doesn't make sense, you can only change the voltages if you hold a reference to the regulator. > 3. A regulator that can do none of the above is defined as "useless" > > You may also run into trouble on boards that use the ability to disable > > unused regulators at the end of boot - they'll power things off even > > without the ability to change status at runtime. > Aha, you mean, I shouldn't put() the regulator, even if it cannot change > status itself? Yes, you ought to to be safe and like I say if you want to manage the voltage then you need to keep a reference to the regulator. > Can this also happen with a dummy regulator? Obviously not, though if you've got explicit code in to handle dummy regulators you're rather missing the point. Their entire purpose is to provide a crutch to keep the system going if bits are missing from the bindings, they're not intended to be used in production.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
