Hi, On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 10:24:09AM +0900, Mark Brown wrote: > On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 07:25:32PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > > isn't this all the same as claiming the regulator but never actually > > using the regulator APIs ? I mean, you could add the regulator, then on > > smartreflex code, regulator_get(), but when it gets to get/set voltage, > > you use the omap_*() functions instead of regulator_*(). > > That wasn't what I got from the patches but it also sounds like a bad > idea. Why go around the core code? a hack for a hack... what's the difference ? If it's only to solve a limitation temporarily anyways... although it would be better to discuss how to add such support to the framework already. -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
