On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 16:58 +0100, Ben Dooks wrote: > On Sun, Apr 04, 2010 at 02:10:58PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 03, 2010 at 08:12:56PM +0200, Sundar R IYER wrote: > > > > Please fix your mail client to word wrap within paragraphs; not doing > > this makes your messages harder to read and reply to. I've reflowed below. > > > > > 1. The documentation for the regulators mentions "power domains" and > > > "switches" to be modeled as regulators. I am planning to model multiple > > > "switches" for controlling supplies to various peripherals from a main > > > master regulator as multiple regulators, childed from the parent > > > regulator. Is this the right way to proceed ahead? Further the options > > > > If you want to do this in the regulator framework, yes. > > > > > for these switches will be only a logical on/off. (BTW, I saw lots of TI > > > stuff which is something related to power domains, but it doesn't model > > > the regulator framework.) > > > > Nor does the SH stuff. With the power domains of a CPU it often doesn't > > buy terribly much to use the regulator framework - the power domains are > > often a small part of a much bigger picture for the CPU internal power > > management, often incorporating thing > > I personally think there is merit to having the regulator framework at > least play a part in these, as is possible the powerdomains are being > fed from external regulators and/or power switches. I see it as good > way of using existing support to do useful work. I tend to agree here, although I think it's still early days for this technology and maybe some hybrid approach will eventually emerge. Fwiw, I'm adding regulator support to other types of tightly coupled CPU/DSP voltage control i.e. OMAP4 SmartReflex. Liam -- Freelance Developer, SlimLogic Ltd ASoC and Voltage Regulator Maintainer. http://www.slimlogic.co.uk _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm