On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 12:30:47PM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [120321 12:03]: > > That should be changed to pass in a boolean flag rather than a pointer > > to platform device - the board may not have direct access to the > > relevant regulator (eg, if it's part of a MFD) or the regulator may be > > on another bus like I2C (for simpler regulator only devices). > Hmm I see. This means that we need to patch some board files anyways > for the boolean flag to use the fixed regulator. This is because for > some cases vddvario and vdd33a regulators can come from the mfd/tps/twl > chip and it's unsafe to assume that gpmc-smsc911x.c can set up these > regulators automatically. Passing a boolean flag to not set up the > default regulator would work too, but we'd rather eventually see > the real board specific regulators being patched in. Yes, ideally the boards would do everything and gpmc-smsc911x.c should be able to completely ignore regulators. > So if that's the case, we might as well patch the board files > to add the fixed regulators for each one and drop all the regulator > code from gpmc-smsc911x.c. That's my preferred option, hopefully with the helpers we have for regulator registration we shouldn't need to add device specific helpers.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
