-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Somebody in the thread at some point said:
|> 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 ? It's also legal to design a board where you tie SD power to, eg, 3.3V rail as we did on GTA02 for WLAN connection. Then the mci subsystem is actually a second consumer of a regulator which has nothing to do with SD (since it is a 3.3V rail). It'd be wrong if we forced the name of that power rail to SD-related. So I think the only way through it is to either pass the name in by platform data, or pull the regulator code out of s3cmci and do it in the machine file as a callback through platform data. - -Andy -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkmKwZoACgkQOjLpvpq7dMpnAQCfbEsIJVGUeeOj01WHYmlrrbxs hTwAniYNHADeyu6GlJa9ILdBhfwRk/HX =+G3A -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
