Re: [RFC] Regulator state after regulator_get

[Sakari Ailus]

Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 01:27:46PM +0300, Sakari Ailus wrote:
>> Mark Brown wrote:
> 
>>> I'm not sure what "supply_nasty" would mean?  This also doesn't seem
>>> like something that we can set up per supply - it's going to affect the
>>> whole regulator state, it's not something that only affects a single
>>> supply.
> 
>> supply_nasty() would be used to define a regulator which is enabled by
>> the boot loader when it shouldn't be, which is the actual problem.
> 
> That's *really* not a clear name.

I agree. It was just meant to imply that there's something wrong in the
way it behaves. :-)

>> How should this regulator be turned off in the boot by the kernel?
> 
> Have you read my previous mail where I described the existing support
> for doing this when we have a full set of information on the regualtors
> in the systems?

Yes, I did read it but I first understood that this use case wasn't
supported right now. Having read it again, that's clearly the way to go
with fixing this. Thanks.

Regards,

-- 
Sakari Ailus
sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
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/