On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > * 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. > No problem. -- 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
