* Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [120321 12:41]: > 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. OK, great, let's do that then. > > 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. Russ, care to update your patch accordingly? Those helpers are queued in linux-next. Regards, Tony -- 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
