On Thu, 17 Jan 2019, Christian Hohnstaedt wrote: > On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 02:13:36PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > > On Mon, 14 Jan 2019, Christian Hohnstaedt wrote: > > > > > These options apply to all regulators in this chip. > > > > > > ti,strict-supply-voltage-supervision: > > > Set STRICT flag in CONFIG1 > > > ti,under-voltage-limit-microvolt: > > > Select 2.75, 2.95, 3.25 or 3.35 V UVLO in CONFIG1 > > > ti,under-voltage-hyst-microvolt: > > > Select 200mV or 400mV UVLOHYS in CONFIG2 > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Christian Hohnstaedt <Christian.Hohnstaedt@xxxxxxxx> > > > Tested-by: Keerthy <j-keerthy@xxxxxx> > > > Reviewed-by: Keerthy <j-keerthy@xxxxxx> > > > --- > > > drivers/mfd/tps65218.c | 89 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > include/linux/mfd/tps65218.h | 4 ++ > > > 2 files changed, 93 insertions(+) > > > > This looks like regulator code. > > > > Why aren't you placing it into the regulator driver? > > This code manages properties of the chip, affecting all regulators. > > The regulator-driver has no hook to be called once for the chip. > Even if I put this code into the regulator driver file, > I will have to call it from here. > > This would introduce a dependency from the mfd to the regulator code. Sounds reasonable. Thanks for the explanation. -- Lee Jones [李琼斯] Linaro Services Technical Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
