Re: [PATCH] regulator: Add LTC3676 support

From	Tim Harvey <tharvey@gateworks.com>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH] regulator: Add LTC3676 support
Date	2016-08-11 22:50 +0200
Message-ID	<s555n-nU-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<s4oMO-5I4-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <s4GTp-n4-93@gated-at.bofh.it> <s4Mm5-413-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <s4UMF-24i-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 2:45 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 05:44:55PM -0700, Tim Harvey wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 4:41 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
>
>> >> +/* LDO1 always on fixed 0.8V-3.3V via scalar via R1/R2 feeback res */
>> >> +static struct regulator_ops ltc3676_fixed_standby_regulator_ops = {
>> >> +};
>
>> > Remove this, it's pointless.
>
>> as I'm using macro's to define the ops, removing this ends up breaking
>> compilation:
>
>> do you know of some macro foo to best handle this? Part of me wants to
>> ditch the macro's and just simply declare the array of regulators
>> directly as its much easier to read/follow.
>
> Just don't use the macro for that regulator?
>

Mark,

regulators must have a non-null ops field or they will fail
registration so I can't just not assign it. What would be an
appropriate ops structure for a always-on fixed regulator?

Regards,

Tim

Thread

Re: [PATCH] regulator: Add LTC3676 support Tim Harvey <tharvey@gateworks.com> - 2016-08-11 02:50 +0200
  Re: [PATCH] regulator: Add LTC3676 support Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> - 2016-08-11 11:50 +0200
    Re: [PATCH] regulator: Add LTC3676 support Tim Harvey <tharvey@gateworks.com> - 2016-08-11 22:50 +0200
      Re: [PATCH] regulator: Add LTC3676 support Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> - 2016-08-12 11:30 +0200

csiph-web