On 04/02/2013 08:16 PM, Mike Turquette wrote:
Quoting Nishanth Menon (2013-04-01 20:35:45)
On 17:05-20130401, Mike Turquette wrote:
OK, so we're in agreement on what The Future looks like. What does that
mean for Andrii's patchset?
Unless anyone has an fundamental issue with the approach of an "Super
regulator" controlling "sub regulators", I think, in-line with your
view, we should probably make ABB as an regulator instead of inventing
our own API and hooking it around clock notifiers.
ACK. Making the ABB code into a regulator driver is the right thing to
do regardless of whether or not we use a Super Regulator(tm) or just
chain together Not So Super Regulators(tm).
I'm not an expert at the regulator framework, but I encourage Andrii to
look into regulator_set_mode(), which might be a more semantically
accurate alternative than regulator_set_voltage() for the ABB ldo.
Regards,
Mike
--
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
Hi,
Agree. It is a good idea in general.
regulator_set_mode() API seems to be good enough for handling ABB mode
(FBB/RBB/Bypass).
Knowledge about ABB mode on each OPP can be moved from ABB regulator to
"Super regulator".
Thanks a lot for all your comments.
Regards,
Andrii
--
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
