Hi,
2010/11/14 Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 19:11:46 +0100
> Enric Balletbà i Serra <eballetbo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Why we need to define an unexistent regulator in board file ? This
>> should not be done enabling the CONFIG_DUMMY_REGULATOR in your kernel
>> configuration Â?
>
> I'm not adding another regulator, but instead simply exposing the fact
> (or rather my guess) that the same regulator (vmmc1) is powering the
> two MMC channels. Not having access to the board schematics, I can't
> tell if that reflects the reality or not.
>
> But using CONFIG_DUMMY_REGULATOR seems the wrong idea to me, as it's
> just papering over the issue. We should be exposing what's really on
> the board (a fixed regulator if that's the case).
So the DUMMY_REGULATOR is only a workaround when a regulator is not
defined and shouldn't be used ? Sorry if this is a stupid question but
regulator interface is not too clear for me.
The reality is this :
------- --------
| 3V3 | | 1V8 |
------- --------
| |
-----------------
| WIFI/BT |
-----------------
| ( MMC2 at 1V8 )
----------------
| OMAP |
---------------
3V3 is a fixed regulator
1V8 is a fixed regulator (VIO from TWL4030)
So, which you think is the right solution ?
Cheers,
Enric
--
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
