[PATCH] ARM: S3C64XX: Hook up VDDINT on Cragganmore

[Kyungmin Park]

On 12/6/11, Mark Brown <broonie at opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> wrote:
> Basic hookup, we do have a GPIO to use to control the voltage but we don't
> currently use it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie at opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/mach-crag6410.c |    7 +++++++
>  1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/mach-crag6410.c
> b/arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/mach-crag6410.c
> index 47a36c4..879d949 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/mach-crag6410.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/mach-crag6410.c
> @@ -381,6 +381,10 @@ static struct regulator_init_data vddarm __initdata = {
>  	.driver_data = &vddarm_pdata,
>  };
>
> +static struct regulator_consumer_supply vddint_consumers[] __initdata = {
> +	REGULATOR_SUPPLY("vddint", NULL),

Now there's mixed usage for vddint. until s5pc110 it uses the 'vddint'
but after exynos it uses the 'vdd_int'. either is okay but need to use
the same name for consistency?

How do you think?

Thank you,
Kyungmin Park
> +};
> +
>  static struct regulator_init_data vddint __initdata = {
>  	.constraints = {
>  		.name = "VDDINT",
> @@ -389,6 +393,9 @@ static struct regulator_init_data vddint __initdata = {
>  		.always_on = 1,
>  		.valid_ops_mask = REGULATOR_CHANGE_VOLTAGE,
>  	},
> +	.num_consumer_supplies = ARRAY_SIZE(vddint_consumers),
> +	.consumer_supplies = vddint_consumers,
> +	.supply_regulator = "WALLVDD",
>  };
>
>  static struct regulator_init_data vddmem __initdata = {
> --
> 1.7.7.3
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
>