Hi Chris, On Wednesday 19 of September 2012 06:24:46 Chris Ball wrote: > Hi Tomasz, > > On Wed, Sep 19 2012, Tomasz Figa wrote: > > Hi Chris, > > > > On Wednesday 19 of September 2012 01:42:01 Chris Ball wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 04 2012, Tomasz Figa wrote: > >> > Some boards use fixed voltage regulator for vmmc supply (e.g. for > >> > eMMC > >> > memories). MMC_CAP2_BROKEN_VOLTAGE must be enabled for them to > >> > operate > >> > correctly. > >> > >> Is there a reason we can't make this a property on the regulator > >> instead?> > > Is there a reason we can't make this a property of the mmc subsystem? > > ;) > > > > Now, seriously, could you elaborate on this a bit more? Do you mean > > that a regulator should provide a dummy set voltage operation that > > would accept any voltage? > > Sorry for the terseness. > > It seems like we're encoding exactly the same information twice in two > different subsystems -- I don't see the point, so I'd like to think > about how we could do better. > > For example, if we're only concerned about fixed regulators, could we > just detect a fixed regulator in the driver and avoid the failing call > to regulator_set_voltage() directly, without needing to go via this > capability? Seems like the capability doesn't tell us anything we > couldn't already have known. We could just check if the regulator provides the capability to change the voltage. I don't see any direct way of querying the regulator for provided capabilities (correct me if I'm just blind), but calling regulator_count_voltages() on the regulator and checking if the returned value is 1 should be enough to assume that the regulator is fixed. What do you think? Best regards, -- Tomasz Figa Samsung Poland R&D Center -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
