On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 12:09:42AM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote: > If we ignore the details of the class 1.5 implementation, we will notice > a) regulator set_voltage equivalent set_voltage() is required. > b) this set_voltage does some 'magic stuff' depending on the SoC and AVS class > and calls the 'real regulator' which talks to the PMIC over i2c/spi etc.. > in short the call sequence is more or less: > > driver (cpufreq) -> AVS -> PMIC regulator. > > By modeling AVS class drivers as an regulator, we then do not need to introduce > SoC specific hacks and APIs. But you're shoehorning something into the regulator API which isn't supposed to be there and causing yourself problems. This just isn't a good idea. The regulator API already has a mechanism for supporting regulators which are supplied by other regulators, if you can't model in terms of that (adding something to support variability better) then you're not using a regulator.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
