Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 09:41:11AM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote: > >> Like you, I'm no expert on the regulator framework internals, but it >> appears to have a pretty thorough system of constraints management that >> upon first glance seems to be a good fit for what we need. It may need >> to be extended, but I would rather see us enhance the regulator >> framework than re-invent the constraints management. > > This seems reasonable, the only thing I'm wary of with this stuff is > adding things to manage anything outside voltages since I'm not > convinced that the requirements of different processors for other things > are sufficiently well understood to make a simple abstraction. Mark, thanks for your input. For now, at least on OMAP, we're only thinking of managing voltages for the primary voltage rails on chip. We already have well defined layers for managing our power domains and clockdomains and prefer to keep that as OMAP-internal code, as it's nothing that drivers really need to be aware of. > The only thing I can think you might need to do if this is just straight > voltage setting is re-add support for multiple consumers setting > voltages simultaneously Yeah, that sounds like what we need. re-add? was it there at one point and removed? Any pointers to the old code? > (there was someone from Qualcomm talking about > that as well but I didn't see any patches from him) but the API side is > all there and the core support ought to be relatively straightforward. OK, thanks for the feedback. Kevin -- 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
