On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 15:54:53, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 11:08:49AM +0100, Benoit Cousson wrote: > > > I was wondering that, because exposing a pin to control the whole PMIC > > low power mode seems to be something that should be generic enough to be > > handled by the regulator framework. > > Having something that's controlled by software is really not at all > generic - suspending a PMIC from a GPIO is generally tied in very > closely with the CPU power sequencing which means it's typically some > combination of very hard coded things that we can't control or part of > much wider control of sequencing. > > > In the current situation we do have a pwr_en pin that can be controlled > > by a GPIO or whatever signal from the SoC. > > That's very similar, at PMIC level, to the fixedregulator that allow a > > GPIO binding to enable it. > > > Don't you think that should deserve a support in the fmwk? > > I'm not seeing a coherent description of a feature here - what exactly > are you proposing that we do? When and how would this GPIO be set for > example? It would be better if these patches are going in like this till the framework exists. We can change/move this portion once the framework is defined for this kind. Thanks AnilKumar -- 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
