On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 02:39:29PM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > On Mon, 28 May 2012, Mark Brown wrote: > > Even if the supply is always on you can easily provide an always on > > regulator. From the point of view of the consumer if there are two > > physical supplies needed it's much clearer and easier to just code that > > and deal with the fact that we might have no control over them > > externally, there's nothing device specific about that process. > Mark, I'm not sure I understand your above comment correctly. The > function, that I add in this patch doesn't do much now, that we removed > IIUC, to satisfy Philip's requirement for a second regulator it would > suffice to just issue one more devm_regulator_get() and let the caller > deal with any errors. Is this what you're suggesting or are you against > adding the second regulator? We could of course also add it later, but > that would change the function prototype (unless we add regulator pointers > to struct mmc_host itself). Whith existing users such changes are a bit > messy... Yes, that's what I'm suggesting. I guess you could wrap the two regulators up in a small struct without it being too invasive?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
