[PATCH v2 3/5] regulator: helper routine to extract regulator_init_data
grant.likely at secretlab.ca
Thu Oct 13 14:38:21 EDT 2011
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 11:29:29AM +0530, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
> On Monday 10 October 2011 10:52 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> >On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 09:49:36PM +0530, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
> >>+- regulator-change-voltage: boolean, Output voltage can be changed by software
> >>+- regulator-change-current: boolean, Output current can be chnaged by software
> >>+- regulator-change-mode: boolean, Operating mode can be changed by software
> >>+- regulator-change-status: boolean, Enable/Disable control for regulator exists
> >>+- regulator-change-drms: boolean, Dynamic regulator mode switching is enabled
> >>+- regulator-mode-fast: boolean, allow/set fast mode for the regulator
> >>+- regulator-mode-normal: boolean, allow/set normal mode for the regulator
> >>+- regulator-mode-idle: boolean, allow/set idle mode for the regulator
> >>+- regulator-mode-standby: boolean, allow/set standby mode for the regulator
> >>+- regulator-input-uV: Input voltage for regulator when supplied by another regulator
> >>+- regulator-always-on: boolean, regulator should never be disabled
> >Thinking about this I'm not sure that these should go in the device
> >tree, they're as much talking about what Linux is able to cope with as
> >they are talking about what the hardware is able to do. Sometimes
> >they'll be fixed by the design but they are sometimes also restricted by
> >what the software is currently capable of. DRMS is a prime example
> >here, it depends on how good we are at telling the API about how much
> >current we're using.
> So is there another way of passing these, if not through device tree?
> There are other linux specific things that need to be passed to the
> framework as well, like the state of the regulator in the various
> linux specific suspend states, like standby/mem/disk.
> So if these can't be passed through device tree, should they still
> be passed in some way through platform_data? Or is it best to identify
> the bindings as being linux specific and not generic by appending a
> "linux," to the bindings.
> Grant, need some help and advice.
I can't really help much here. If it is a property of the hardware,
then it absolutely needs to be in the device tree. If it is a
limitation of Linux, or the Linux driver, then I would say that it
should be encoded in the driver. I don't understand enough of the
problem space of regulators to give a good answer about what you
These *sound* like flags that the driver would set based on its own
capabilities; in which case it is something that would be encoded
directly into the driver.
More information about the linux-arm-kernel