Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] cpufreq: mediatek: add Mediatek cpufreq driver

[Viresh Kumar]

On 11 March 2015 at 17:12, Lucas Stach <l.stach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Instead of creating virtual regulators I would be strongly in favor of
> reviving the voltage-domain work. That would allow us to push all those
> voltage dependencies we have seen on various SoCs into the domain
> handling code and don't care about it in the drivers.
>
> In that case cpufreq-dt wouldn't control a regulator directly, but
> request a specific voltage from the domain the CPUs are located in and
> those in turn would control the regulators supplying them.

I agree that it would be the right approach but who is going to do that stuff ?

I think until the time we revive the voltage-domain stuff we need to support
mediatek's driver. And probably a virtual regulator is the best approach
unless someone else comes up with another idea.
--
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/