Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1327801 > unrolled thread

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

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  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

#1327801 — Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] regulator: Add coupled regulator

[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

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1327843

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

On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 03:33:28PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> 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:

> > > 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?

Either that or an explicit regulator describing the merge.  Rob wants
the list I think but I really don't care.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web