On Mon, 2010-05-17 at 22:38 +0200, Linus WALLEIJ wrote: > [Sundar] > > This is one of the most important aspect for such a change in the > > regulator framework: bringing in the domain aspect can encourage all > > newer (possibly older) architectures to come under a generic umbrella. > I have the same view, and I've been enouraging Sundar to bring this > discussion with the community in order to avoid code duplication. > Of course we can start inventing our own power-domain machine > like everyone else, but before we do that, let's atleast try to > do something generic, so bear with us... So, there's two separate issues here: one is if it makes sense to do a generic power domain framework and/or, and the other is if it makes sense for that generic power domain framework to be part of the regulator API. I do agree that separating out the common bits of power domain implementation would be good, my concerns here are around the level of integration with the regulator API. _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
