Re: [PATCH 1/4] regulator: add set_voltage_time[_sel]infrastructure

[Mark Brown]

On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 03:45:39PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Mark Brown

> +               /*
> +                * If we can't obtain the old selector there is not enough
> +                * info to call set_voltage_time_sel().
> +                */
> +               if (rdev->desc->ops->set_voltage_time_sel &&
> +                   rdev->desc->ops->get_voltage_sel) {
> +                       unsigned int old_selector = 0;
> +
> +                       ret = rdev->desc->ops->get_voltage_sel(rdev);
> +                       if (ret < 0)
> +                               return ret;
> +                       old_selector = ret;
> +                       delay = rdev->desc->ops->set_voltage_time_sel(rdev,
> +                                               old_selector, selector);
> +               }
> +

Hrm, right.  This means we can only support this for selector based
get_voltage().  That's probably fine, I think.

> > I also think we should be exporting this to consumers as things like
> > cpufreq are interested in the latency for voltage changes.

> Can we take that when we have a consumer that wants it? Looking
> at it it becomes rather complex, since consumers don't know the
> core-internal selectors, just discrete enumerated voltages, so these
> have to be mapped back to selectors etc, that's pretty much ovehead
> code that sits unused.

> (If you insist, I will implement it.)

Consumers know about the set of selectors as they are used to enumerate
the supported voltages via list_voltage().  An existing cpufreq driver
such as the s3c64xx one would be able to take advantage of this very
quickly.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/