On Monday 23 February 2009, Mark Brown wrote: > The change to add voltage range constraints if none were supplied is a > noticable policy change from the existing framework standard - it allows > machines to enable voltage changes without specifying what the valid > values are. "Whatever the hardware handles" *is* a specification. And there's no more assurance it's right than any other specification would be ... except that, as a rule, hardware designers like to avoid assemblies subject to trivial misconfiguration mistakes (like firing up a 2.5V-max rail at 5V). > I'm not convinced that this is a good idea in the first > place and it will result in the opposite behaviour to the current core > code (which should end up erroring out in constraint checking at runtime). Well, if you really dislike it so much, that can easily be removed. Got any comments on the framework patch I sent? I'll take that as the first one, even though it's a different thread. - Dave -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
