Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] regulator: Add coupled regulator

From	Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] regulator: Add coupled regulator
Date	2016-02-05 15:40 +0100
Message-ID	<qYPIe-1t6-15@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	(3 earlier) <qR8oG-3Fn-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <qRJ4S-3eC-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <qSkQO-38H-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <qTpEL-7eF-37@gated-at.bofh.it> <qTqht-7Nb-19@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw

Hi Mark,

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 04:28:02PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 04:46:49PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> 
> > I guess a separate driver would make it easier to deal with cases like
> > the one you suggested (shutting down when the load is going to be
> > lower). I don't see how we could have a good DT representation of that
> > if we're going to use lists.
> 
> We can have a driver regardless of what the DT looks like, it's a
> question of how things get instantiated.
> 
> > Anyway, I'm fine with both approaches, just let me know what you
> > prefer.
> 
> Without seeing an implementation of the lists it's hard to say.

Just to make sure we're on the same page: you want to keep the
regulator, but instead of giving the parent through vinX-supplies
properties, you want to have a single *-supply property, with a list
of regulators, right?

Thanks!
Maxime

-- 
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] regulator: Add coupled regulator Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> - 2016-02-05 15:40 +0100
  Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] regulator: Add coupled regulator Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> - 2016-02-05 16:40 +0100

csiph-web