On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 10:01:34AM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 11:52:52PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > This looks fine, can you submit properly please? For the I2C address > > why not just have an interface to get the regmap and then provide a way > > to get the underlying device back from the regmap? > Is it mandatory for regulators to use regmap? Also I'm not sure how this No, but this is for a limited subset of devices that the hardware knows how to write to directly which means that they're restricted to things that can be supported with regmap (or already know how to interact with the hardware and don't need this interface at all). The proposed patch already relies on regmap - it's passing back the information the regmap helpers use. > will work with MFDs, since the device may not be the actual bus device, > but rather a child of the MFD (and what we want access to is the MFD). > Perhaps for regmaps that would work in most cases since MFDs seem to > aften share the regmap with their children. However, the code in > regulator_register() at least indicates that even then it's possible to > have a regmap in children that's different from the top-level MFD. Right, drivers can say exactly which regmap to use.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
