On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 10:36:18PM -0700, Tim Kryger wrote: > On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Right, there's two things going on here. One is that as you describe we > > shouldn't be putting constraints in .dtsi files if we don't know they're > > OK for a given board. The other thing is that on this particular board > > it turns out that there's no support for varying the voltages at all so > > it doesn't make sense to have to specify a range, there's only one value > > anyway so the software really should be able to figure out that fixed > > value all by itself. > If constraints are truly irrelevant when the voltage supplied to > consumers is fixed, why doesn't regulator_list_voltage honor this > exemption and skip the voltage filtering that uses (potentially > unspecified) constraints when output is entirely determined by a > parent (or grandparent) supply that can't change its voltage? > It seems odd to make callers be the ones to handle this subtlety. regulator_list_voltage() tells the consumer what voltages could be set, regulator_get_voltage() tells the consumer what the voltage currently is. These aren't quite the same thing.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
