On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 12:24:02PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On 04/06/10 19:19, Mark Brown wrote: > > TBH this seems like a very vanilla use case - there may be some small > > advantage to representing the internal regulator via the regulator API > > but that's about the only thing I can think might be a bit odd. > I wasn't thinking of representing the internal regulator using the regulator > framework (though if it is externally available I guess that would make sense > though probably only if anyone is actually using this to supply something else > - most likely case I can think of is daisy chaining multiple adc's and ensuring > they have the same reference value). Like I say, I think this is likely to be a small benefit from that. The rest of what you're doing seems very vanilla. > Nothing new here, but there will be a number of consumers that care about changes > in voltage (rather than typically controlling it.) Hence I'm welcoming the change > just agreed upon. Note that you're not going to see any difference you can actually use here - you still have to handle the possibility that you've got an actual regulator but for some reason fail to read a voltage from it which is the same behaviour that you see from the dummy regulator. _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
