On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 00:47, Sascha Hauer wrote: > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 11:59:31PM +0200, Mark Brown wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 10:26:58PM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote: >> >> > drivers/regulator/Makefile | 2 +- >> > drivers/regulator/dummy-supply.c | 88 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> We already have a dummy regulator driver and a fixed voltage regulator >> driver, we shouldn't be adding a third implementation of the same thing. >> Just use the fixed voltage regulator for this. > > I explained in my mail why I think that the current implementation of > the dummy regulator is not suitable for things apart from debugging. > > My main concern with the fixed regulator is that it needs quite much > boilerplate code just to say that we have no regulator at all for a > given device. That could also be handled with a helper function which > registers a fixed regulator and only takes the regulator_consumer_supply > as an argument. Would that be ok for you? i think Mark's point is that we have code in dummy.c already to provide a dummy regulator. so your needs sounds like it could be satisfied with some Kconfig/ifdef massaging and the existing drivers/regulator/dummy.c rather than introducing a completely parallel file that is always enabled ? -mike -- 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
