On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 01:50:14PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Friday 28 October 2011 18:47:57 Sascha Hauer wrote: > > > 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. > your complaints seem to be specific to how the dummy regulator gets hooked in > and not in the specific regulator implementation. so it seems like the right > thing would be to split the kconfig knobs: Quite. Sascha, your mail doesn't refer to the implementation of the regulator itself at all. Nothing in your changelog even mentions that you're introducing a new regulator driver. I think there's a big abstraction understanding failure here, reading your changelog I'm not sure you understand the existing mechainsms that are in place. You say: | This patch allows a board to register dummy supplies for devices | which need a regulator but which is not software controllable | on this board. but this is exactly the use case the fixed voltage regulator is there for. > config REGULATOR_DUMMY > - bool "Provide a dummy regulator if regulator lookups fail" > + bool "Provide a dummy regulator" > +config REGULATOR_DUMMY_FALLBACK > + bool "Fallback to dummy regulator if lookup fails" > + depends on REGULATOR_DUMMY As I think I said earlier I'd use the fixed regulator for this, all Sascha's actually doing here is adding a wrapper to simplify registration of that. -- 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
