On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 13:44:02 +0200
Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 13:41 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
>
> > > + * static struct regulator_consumer_supply pcap_regulator_V6_consumers [] = {
> > > + * { .dev_name = "rfkill-regulator.0", supply = "vrfkill" },
> > > + * };
> >
> > It's a comment, but it should be .supply = (missing the .)
> >
well spotted, I'll fix this.
> > > + if (pdata->name == NULL || pdata->type == 0) {
> > > + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "invalid name or type in platform data\n");
> > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + vcc = regulator_get_exclusive(&pdev->dev, "vrfkill");
> >
> > Wasn't that supposed to use pdata->supply? Actually, there's no member
> > "supply" in the struct?
>
> Oh wait, I think I just misunderstood how this works. But if the name is
> "vrfkill" how does that really work with multiple instances?
>
That's how the regulator framework works, I know Mark already replied to
you but I try to elaborate more for the records and to organize my
thoughts about that:
- In the consumers for the regulator we choose the virtual supply,
"vrfkill" in this case, and which driver is going to use it.
- Wrt. to multiple instances, they are distinguished using device ids.
When we set consumers for a physical regulator we can tell: device
"rfkill-regulator.1" will call this regulator "vrfkill" and we
declare the relative rfkill-regulator platform device with .id=1,
this way the regulator framework knows what physical regulator to
return when asked for vrfkill _from_ a rfkill-regulator platform
device instance with .id==1
I hope I am not introducing any inaccuracies :)
A v3 of the patch is on its way.
Thanks,
Antonio
--
Antonio Ospite
http://ao2.it
PGP public key ID: 0x4553B001
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
Attachment:
pgpqcBGk1qqs5.pgp
Description: PGP signature
