On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Philip Rakity <prakity@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Don't know enough about the device tree to help. Originally I suggested a > quirk simular to what you are suggesting but it was felt to be too specific > since the bits in caps2 achieve the same effect. Maybe your board specific > code can check if the regulator is capable of switching and can be turned on > and off. Not sure how to do the later. Checking the usage count does not > help. You want exclusive access. Mark Brown might know how to do this else > perhaps the regulator framework needs extending. We don't have a regulator in this case. If we did we'd probably be in a different situation. An option closer to overriding caps/caps1 in the board code is to put the caps/caps1 overrides in the device tree directly. Doesn't sound pleasing either, and I'm not sure that it makes sense; really the hardware's reporting of its own capabilities is not wrong, it just does not consider the capabilities of the surrounding components on the motherboard. So a quirk feels more natural to me... Daniel -- 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
