On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 10:41:27AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > 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. Ok, didn't know this. > > > 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... It's just that it's simpler for a board to provide all dummy supplies in a single array, no matter if the real voltage is 1.8V or 3.3V. Anyway, as the voltage is optional in a fixed regulator this is no problem. I'll update my patch to use the fixed regulator then. Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | -- 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
