Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] regulator: Add coupled regulator
From: Maxime Ripard
Date: Thu Jan 21 2016 - 10:47:00 EST
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 04:25:38PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > - When you come to consider it from an hardware point of view, the
> > > device usually have a single pin that powers it. It's the board
> > > designer that chose to route that pin to multiple regulators, so
> > > it's really the board that is wired that way, and putting that
> > > code in the consumer drivers would be an abstraction leak imho.
> > That's a good point. Perhaps the regulator core needs to be able to
> > parse the list and return the single ptr to the virtual regulator.
> Exactly, if we don't want to represent the combination directly. For
> most uses it's probably OK but I can see us in a situation where we
> might want to do things like only use one of the regulators in low load
> situations where we might want to attach properties to the merge of the
> two regulators rather than just referencing them both. I'm not sure
> that's realistic though or that we wouldn't just be working that use
> case out dynamically at runtime.
> I'm ambivalent on which way is better, it does complicate the
> implementation to support doing this as lists and while it makes the DT
> more elegant I'm not clear that it's worth the effort especially when it
> comes to constraint combining. But perhaps the implementation turns out
> to be simpler than I would anticiapte.
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.
Anyway, I'm fine with both approaches, just let me know what you
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
Description: Digital signature