On Tuesday 28 April 2009, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 02:32:56AM -0700, David Brownell wrote: > > On Tuesday 28 April 2009, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > > > > > For the record, that "incomplete constraints" message is bogus. > > > > On that board, VAUX3 has a complete set of constraints: it may > > > > only emit 2.8V. > > > > > > > > What it lacks is something entirely different: driver support > > > > for the LCD which uses the regulator framework, > > > > > > It's not VAUX3 that it's saying has incomplete constraints, it's the > > > board as a whole - if the constraints for the board were fully specified > > > > No; driver support != constraint. Only one of the > > issues is packaged as a "constraint". > > Driver support isn't particularly relevant here. It's the *entire* point. The driver is talking directly to the regulator, bypassing this framework. The constraints on that regulator are fully defined ... and then bypassed. > > > > Mark and/or Liam ... you might want to fix that diagnostic, to > > > > avoid leading more developers astray! > > > > Probably shove a "board has" in there or something I guess. > > > How about: "VAUX3 board support is incomplete". > > That's accurate. > > No. The constraints being complete is a property of the board as a > whole and not the particular regulator. Except ... that "constraint" isn't the issue, it's unexpected driver behavior. And "board" is exactly what I said, so I don't know why you're arguing. (For the "fun" of it?) Board support includes full driver support, as well as board setup (constraints). That's the common way to factor it, at any rate -- a "board support package" addresses both, and they need to work together. -- 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
