On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 03:47:34PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 01:33:55PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 05:00:46PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > It's not just Linux-specific stuff, some of this is even specific to > > > what current Linux drivers can do - updating the kernel could mean a > > > different set of constraints. > > > Well, from what I see, the 'struct regulation_constraints' is defined > > in machine.h and meant to be the regulator machine/board interface. > > ...which will depend on the system integrator's understanding of what > their system is capable of right now. > > > With the example I'm looking at, mc13892, the regulation_constraints > > configuration is fully passed from machine/board file. If there is > > something specific to what drivers can do, it probably should be encoded > > in regulator driver rather than staying in regulation_constraints. > > I don't think you're quite understanding the issue - it's an integration > problem with three different variables. It's a combination of what the > chips can do, what the drivers can do and if the board design affects > any of this stuff. > Honestly, I'm still pretty new to regulator subsystem, so really need your help to understand the situation. > Only the board can come to a final decision. > The dts is very capable and suitable to describe the board's decision. But you disagree that we put all constraints description into DT. I'm a pretty confused here. So again, what is your suggestion to this 'problem'? -- Regards, Shawn -- 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
