On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 01:00:26PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 06:15:54PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > Sure, that's the transition issues I mentioned - the regulator API does > > have stubbing facilities which should cover things and it's very easy to > > define stub regulators if you need to. Like I say I expect this to be a > > lot easier after the next merge window as another way of doing stubs is > > being added which should make this even easier by avoiding disrupting > > drivers that do genuinely want to check for absent supplies and handle > > that better. > We will need to make sure that all dts files using any of the compatible chips > are updated accordingly. There are several entries in various dts files for > adm1032, adt7461, lm90, and nct1008. Yes, and probably also board files as well. Or either just accept bisection trouble for now or wait till the better stubbing is in there - that will mean that for DT systems the core will just assume the supply is really there and not fail requests if it's not in the DT. > > The names requested by a driver are defined with regard to the device > > and should be the names used by the chip itself as defined in the > 9 votes for vdd, 11 votes for vcc, one undecided (no datasheet available). > Guess one is as good as the other ;-). What I've suggested before is to use the name from the part for which the driver is named. Assuming the vendor doesn't randomly change their datasheet (but that causes problems for hardware engineers so tends to be avoided).
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
