Mark, On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 9:09 AM, Mark Brown <broonie at kernel.org> wrote: >> OK, I'll give a shot at taking my code and using it as a new >> implementation for regulator_set_voltage_tol(). In the SD card code >> I'll pick some reasonable tolerances--they won't be exactly what the >> spec says, but they ought to be good enough. If Ulf comes back and >> yells at me then we can revisit adding a new API. > > OK, thanks. Even if a new interface does get added the implementation > needs to be shared with that for setting by tolerance, they're doing the > same thing. Yup, exactly. I'll admit wasn't originally aware of the tolerance API and my first thought after your email was to reimplement it atop my patch. ...but just having tolerance right now also seems sane. > Please also bear in mind the need to handle shared supplies in your > implementation. I'm being dense, can you give more details? Do you want me to grab the mutex or do something smarter like track the voltage / tolerance requested by multiple clients and resolve them, or ...? I didn't grab any mutex because I thought all of the attributes I was looking at were unchanging. If they're not then regulator_is_supported_voltage() probably has a bug since I'm reading roughly the same attributes that it is. ...and in fact the flow of my code is also amost the same as regulator_is_supported_voltage()... -Doug
