On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 11:03:56AM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote: > On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 06:27:21PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > 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. > There's one difference between the fixed and the dummy regulator though: > The fixed regulator has a voltage. The same dummy regulator instance can No, the voltage is optional. > be used for all devices which do not have a software controllable > regulator. I think the same can be done with the fixed regulator aswell, > but the bogus voltage showing up in the sysfs entry might be confusing > to users. I don't think that's a meaningful issue, any in any case it'd be better practice to fill it in so devices can use the information if they want to (which really shouldn't be hard > Another approach to this topic would be to allow a board to explicitely > bind to the existing dummy regulator, like the following (error path > should of course be implemented before applying this) If you know you've got a fixed voltage supply I don't understand why you wouldn't want to set one up. There clearly is an actual supply in the system... -- 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
