On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 09:04:04AM +0000, Andy Green wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Somebody in the thread at some point said: > > |> - s3cmci.c shouldn't have to know about a platform's power > |> arrangements. That's why we have set_power. > | > | In mach-gta02.c, when we define SD_3V3, we also have to specify which > | device is the consumer - which means the supply namespace is not global > | and it depends on the device and not the platform. So, I think it's > | reasonable to assume that any regulator that supplies it will be > | named SD_3V3 ? > > SD_3V3 is actually a GTAxx specific name. SD power is variable even > down to 1.8V. So this is a bogus name for the general case. >
Ah, ok. > Because s3cmci.c is generic platform code we need to pass literals like > this in by platform data if it will go upstream, although how "upstream" > feels about conversion to regulator API overall I dunno. > Can't we use some generic common name in place of SD_3V3 ? - Balaji
