On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 05:12:17PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > +Mark
> I realize Mark has been out of the discussion, and what started as a DT > problem actually turned into a PWM regulator discussion. > Maybe we should start a new thread. Probably, you're lucky I even looked at this - the number of irrelevant patches I get CCed on is such that I'll often delete things that look irrelevant unread. I'm unsure what the relevance is, it looks like it's mainly a discussion about pinctrl? > As I said, the problem you're describing (pins muxed to the PWM device > when it should actually stay in gpio+input mode) is not new, and the old > pwm-regulator and pwm-rockchip implementation (before my atomic PWM > changes) were behaving the same way. Why would this make any kind of sense? > What is new though, is the pwm_regulator_init_state() function , and > it seems it's now preventing the probe of a pwm-regulator device if the > initial PWM state is not described in the voltage-table. > The question is, what should we do? > 1/ Force users to put an entry matching this state (which means > breaking DT compat) > 2/ Put a valid value in drvdata->state even if it's not reflecting the > real state > 3/ Patch regulator core to support an "unknown-selector" return code. Could someone say what the actual problem was please? That was a very long e-mail so I might be missing something but the obvious thing seems to be to force a state since we'll be doing that when we enable anyway. Or just not have the voltage table and use it as a continuous regulator.
Description: PGP signature