Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 05:11:11PM -0800, Kevin Hilman wrote: > >> Seems to me like the get/set override should be more generic (part of >> regulator core) instead of TWL specific? > >> Otherwise, whenever someone hooks up a non-TWL regulator to an OMAP and >> is using HW control (via VC/VP), they'll have to duplicate all of this >> stuff in their regulator driver? > > Frankly I'm not sure I understand how the hardware is supposed to work > here - originally the plan was to just add a new regulator driver for > the hardware control block which is I guess clean enough but it seems > like some of the other control still goes via the normal path. Yes, some of the control still goes via the normal path (although I forget which, maybe Benoit can remind us), so I think it's best to add the HW control part to each regulator that might uses it. Ideally this could be facilitated by adding the extentions to the regulator core so the amount of code needed for each regulator driver would be minimal. Kevin -- 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
