On Wednesday 28 September 2011 01:39 PM, Cousson, Benoit wrote:
On 9/27/2011 8:59 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 08:19:37PM +0530, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
On Tuesday 27 September 2011 05:51 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 03:42:51PM +0530, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
+ if (!dev)
+ return NULL;
So how do we handle CPUs? cpufreq is one of the most active users of
regulators...
Hmm, never thought of it :(
Maybe I should associate a supply name with all
regulators and then lookup from the global registered
list.
I'm not sure how this should work in a device tree world, I'd *hope*
we'd get a device tree node for the CPU and could then just make this a
regular consumer thing but then the cpufreq drivers would need to be
updated to make use of it. The only reason we allow null devices right
now is the fact that cpufreq doesn't have a struct device it can use.
That's why we do have a MPU node in OMAP dts, in order to build an
omap_device that will be mainly used for the DVFS on the MPU.
And even before DT migration, we used to build statically some
omap_device to represent the various processors in the system (MPU, DSP,
CortexM3...).
yes, but clearly not everyone seems to do this. and then there are
also these instances of board files requesting regulators without
associating them with any device :(
Regards,
Benoit
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
