On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 11:31:45AM -0700, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: > El Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 05:32:53PM +0100 Mark Brown ha dit:
> > It does sound rather like we ought to be representing this chip > > directly in case it needs other workarounds. > Ok, we'll consider this. It seems we can drop this patch since the > regulator core is not the best place to address this problem. Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't - the above is a question about how we describe this stuff.
Description: PGP signature