On 09/11/2013 02:52 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> * PGP Signed by an unknown key
>
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 12:37:47PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
>
>> OK, so for the DT binding we should make vcc-supply a required
>> property, yet the driver will still work OK if that property just
>> happens to be
On 09/10/2013 08:11 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> * PGP Signed by an unknown key
>
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 07:29:40PM +0800, Wei Ni wrote:
>
>> On my platform, it use palmas-regulator.c, ldo6 for this lm90 power
>> rail. I checked this driver, it will handle ramp_delay except LDOx.
>> Since I'm not
On 09/10/2013 08:11 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
* PGP Signed by an unknown key
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 07:29:40PM +0800, Wei Ni wrote:
On my platform, it use palmas-regulator.c, ldo6 for this lm90 power
rail. I checked this driver, it will handle ramp_delay except LDOx.
Since I'm not familiar
On 09/11/2013 02:52 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
* PGP Signed by an unknown key
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 12:37:47PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
OK, so for the DT binding we should make vcc-supply a required
property, yet the driver will still work OK if that property just
happens to be missing
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 12:37:47PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> OK, so for the DT binding we should make vcc-supply a required
> property, yet the driver will still work OK if that property just
> happens to be missing (or e.g. when instantiated from a board file,
> and there's no regulator).
On 09/10/2013 12:18 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 11:44:05AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
>
>> OK, so I believe you're saying that the case of a chip with just
>> a single power source, which absolutely must be present in HW for
>> the chip to be powered, isn't appropriate for
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 11:44:05AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> OK, so I believe you're saying that the case of a chip with just a
> single power source, which absolutely must be present in HW for the chip
> to be powered, isn't appropriate for regulator_get_optional(). Something
> must always
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 11:44:05AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 09/10/2013 11:04 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 09:07:43AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> >> On 09/10/2013 04:09 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> >
> >>> No. There are a couple of issues here. One is that we don't
On 09/10/2013 11:04 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 09:07:43AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 09/10/2013 04:09 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
>
>>> No. There are a couple of issues here. One is that we don't want
>>> to litter all drivers with conditional code to check if they
>>>
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 11:22:01AM +0800, Wei Ni wrote:
> Mark, do you mean you have patches for regulator_get_optional() and
> regulator_get()?
Not yet but they'll be there by the time the next merge window comes.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 09:07:43AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 09/10/2013 04:09 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > No. There are a couple of issues here. One is that we don't want
> > to litter all drivers with conditional code to check if they
> > actually got the regulator and so on, that's just
On 09/10/2013 04:09 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 10:13:56PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 09/09/2013 09:53 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>
>>> Earlier comments suggest that this is not the intended use case
>>> for regulator_get_optional().
>
> That's right.
>
>> Isn't the
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 07:29:40PM +0800, Wei Ni wrote:
> On my platform, it use palmas-regulator.c, ldo6 for this lm90 power
> rail. I checked this driver, it will handle ramp_delay except LDOx.
> Since I'm not familiar with this palmas device and driver, so do you
> mean I can set
On 09/10/2013 06:13 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> * PGP Signed by an unknown key
>
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 01:39:59PM +0800, Wei Ni wrote:
>
>> I think the device need time to wait stable after power on, but it's
>> difficult to get an exact delay value, and this delay may also relate
>> with
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 01:39:59PM +0800, Wei Ni wrote:
> I think the device need time to wait stable after power on, but it's
> difficult to get an exact delay value, and this delay may also relate
> with platform design, so how about to add a optional property in the DT
> node, such as
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 10:13:56PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 09/09/2013 09:53 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > Earlier comments suggest that this is not the intended use case for
> > regulator_get_optional().
That's right.
> Isn't the issue only whether the optional aspect of the regulator
On 09/10/2013 01:54 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 09/09/2013 10:39 PM, Wei Ni wrote:
>> On 09/10/2013 12:50 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>> On 09/09/2013 09:05 PM, Wei Ni wrote:
On 09/10/2013 04:39 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> * PGP Signed by an unknown key
>
> On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at
On 09/10/2013 01:54 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On 09/09/2013 10:39 PM, Wei Ni wrote:
On 09/10/2013 12:50 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On 09/09/2013 09:05 PM, Wei Ni wrote:
On 09/10/2013 04:39 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
* PGP Signed by an unknown key
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 09:17:35AM -0700, Guenter
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 10:13:56PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 09/09/2013 09:53 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
Earlier comments suggest that this is not the intended use case for
regulator_get_optional().
That's right.
Isn't the issue only whether the optional aspect of the regulator is
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 01:39:59PM +0800, Wei Ni wrote:
I think the device need time to wait stable after power on, but it's
difficult to get an exact delay value, and this delay may also relate
with platform design, so how about to add a optional property in the DT
node, such as
On 09/10/2013 06:13 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
* PGP Signed by an unknown key
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 01:39:59PM +0800, Wei Ni wrote:
I think the device need time to wait stable after power on, but it's
difficult to get an exact delay value, and this delay may also relate
with platform design,
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 07:29:40PM +0800, Wei Ni wrote:
On my platform, it use palmas-regulator.c, ldo6 for this lm90 power
rail. I checked this driver, it will handle ramp_delay except LDOx.
Since I'm not familiar with this palmas device and driver, so do you
mean I can set
On 09/10/2013 04:09 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 10:13:56PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 09/09/2013 09:53 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
Earlier comments suggest that this is not the intended use case
for regulator_get_optional().
That's right.
Isn't the issue only
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 09:07:43AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 09/10/2013 04:09 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
No. There are a couple of issues here. One is that we don't want
to litter all drivers with conditional code to check if they
actually got the regulator and so on, that's just
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 11:22:01AM +0800, Wei Ni wrote:
Mark, do you mean you have patches for regulator_get_optional() and
regulator_get()?
Not yet but they'll be there by the time the next merge window comes.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On 09/10/2013 11:04 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 09:07:43AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 09/10/2013 04:09 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
No. There are a couple of issues here. One is that we don't want
to litter all drivers with conditional code to check if they
actually got
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 11:44:05AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 09/10/2013 11:04 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 09:07:43AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 09/10/2013 04:09 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
No. There are a couple of issues here. One is that we don't want
to
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 11:44:05AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
OK, so I believe you're saying that the case of a chip with just a
single power source, which absolutely must be present in HW for the chip
to be powered, isn't appropriate for regulator_get_optional(). Something
must always
On 09/10/2013 12:18 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 11:44:05AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
OK, so I believe you're saying that the case of a chip with just
a single power source, which absolutely must be present in HW for
the chip to be powered, isn't appropriate for
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 12:37:47PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
OK, so for the DT binding we should make vcc-supply a required
property, yet the driver will still work OK if that property just
happens to be missing (or e.g. when instantiated from a board file,
and there's no regulator).
Yup.
On 09/09/2013 10:39 PM, Wei Ni wrote:
On 09/10/2013 12:50 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On 09/09/2013 09:05 PM, Wei Ni wrote:
On 09/10/2013 04:39 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
* PGP Signed by an unknown key
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 09:17:35AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 05:02:37PM
On 09/10/2013 12:50 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 09/09/2013 09:05 PM, Wei Ni wrote:
>> On 09/10/2013 04:39 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> * PGP Signed by an unknown key
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 09:17:35AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 05:02:37PM +0100, Mark Brown
On 09/09/2013 09:05 PM, Wei Ni wrote:
On 09/10/2013 04:39 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
* PGP Signed by an unknown key
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 09:17:35AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 05:02:37PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
It does, though it gets complicated trying to use it for
On 09/09/2013 09:13 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 09/09/2013 09:53 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On 09/09/2013 08:40 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 09/09/2013 09:36 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
...
My understanding is that by adding regulator support you essentially
committed to adding regulators (if
On 09/09/2013 09:53 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 09/09/2013 08:40 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 09/09/2013 09:36 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
...
>>> My understanding is that by adding regulator support you essentially
>>> committed to adding regulators (if necessary dummy ones) for this driver
>>>
On 09/10/2013 11:53 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 09/09/2013 08:40 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 09/09/2013 09:36 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>> On 09/09/2013 08:22 PM, Wei Ni wrote:
On 09/09/2013 11:50 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 02:50:22PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On 09/10/2013 04:39 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> * PGP Signed by an unknown key
>
> On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 09:17:35AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 05:02:37PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
>
>>> It does, though it gets complicated trying to use it for a case like
>>> this since
On 09/09/2013 08:40 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 09/09/2013 09:36 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On 09/09/2013 08:22 PM, Wei Ni wrote:
On 09/09/2013 11:50 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 02:50:22PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 04:34:43AM -0700, Guenter Roeck
On 09/09/2013 09:36 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 09/09/2013 08:22 PM, Wei Ni wrote:
>> On 09/09/2013 11:50 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 02:50:22PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 04:34:43AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 09/09/2013 04:12 AM,
On 09/09/2013 08:22 PM, Wei Ni wrote:
On 09/09/2013 11:50 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 02:50:22PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 04:34:43AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On 09/09/2013 04:12 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 06:29:11PM +0800,
On 09/09/2013 11:50 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 02:50:22PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 04:34:43AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>> On 09/09/2013 04:12 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 06:29:11PM +0800, Wei Ni wrote:
>>
This
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 09:17:35AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 05:02:37PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > It does, though it gets complicated trying to use it for a case like
> > this since you can't really tell if the regulator was powered on
> > immediately before the
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 05:02:37PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 08:50:43AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 02:50:22PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > > And indeed it does this (well, it does whatever the driver says in terms
> > > of delay). However
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 08:50:43AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 02:50:22PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > And indeed it does this (well, it does whatever the driver says in terms
> > of delay). However it is possible that the lm90 needs this time for
> > itself - if it's
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 02:50:22PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 04:34:43AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On 09/09/2013 04:12 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > >On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 06:29:11PM +0800, Wei Ni wrote:
>
> > >This doesn't look good, it is going to ignore actual
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 04:34:43AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 09/09/2013 04:12 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> >On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 06:29:11PM +0800, Wei Ni wrote:
> >This doesn't look good, it is going to ignore actual errors - I *really*
> >doubt that vcc is optional, it looks like it's the
On 09/09/2013 04:12 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 06:29:11PM +0800, Wei Ni wrote:
+ reg = devm_regulator_get_optional(dev, "vcc");
+ if (!IS_ERR(reg)) {
+ err = regulator_enable(reg);
+ if (err < 0) {
+ dev_err(>dev,
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 06:29:11PM +0800, Wei Ni wrote:
> + reg = devm_regulator_get_optional(dev, "vcc");
> + if (!IS_ERR(reg)) {
> + err = regulator_enable(reg);
> + if (err < 0) {
> + dev_err(>dev,
> + "Failed to
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 06:29:11PM +0800, Wei Ni wrote:
+ reg = devm_regulator_get_optional(dev, vcc);
+ if (!IS_ERR(reg)) {
+ err = regulator_enable(reg);
+ if (err 0) {
+ dev_err(client-dev,
+ Failed to
On 09/09/2013 04:12 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 06:29:11PM +0800, Wei Ni wrote:
+ reg = devm_regulator_get_optional(dev, vcc);
+ if (!IS_ERR(reg)) {
+ err = regulator_enable(reg);
+ if (err 0) {
+
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 04:34:43AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On 09/09/2013 04:12 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 06:29:11PM +0800, Wei Ni wrote:
This doesn't look good, it is going to ignore actual errors - I *really*
doubt that vcc is optional, it looks like it's the main
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 08:50:43AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 02:50:22PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
And indeed it does this (well, it does whatever the driver says in terms
of delay). However it is possible that the lm90 needs this time for
itself - if it's doing
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 02:50:22PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 04:34:43AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On 09/09/2013 04:12 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 06:29:11PM +0800, Wei Ni wrote:
This doesn't look good, it is going to ignore actual errors - I
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 05:02:37PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 08:50:43AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 02:50:22PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
And indeed it does this (well, it does whatever the driver says in terms
of delay). However it is
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 09:17:35AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 05:02:37PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
It does, though it gets complicated trying to use it for a case like
this since you can't really tell if the regulator was powered on
immediately before the device got
On 09/09/2013 11:50 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 02:50:22PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 04:34:43AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On 09/09/2013 04:12 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 06:29:11PM +0800, Wei Ni wrote:
This doesn't look good, it
On 09/09/2013 08:22 PM, Wei Ni wrote:
On 09/09/2013 11:50 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 02:50:22PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 04:34:43AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On 09/09/2013 04:12 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 06:29:11PM +0800,
On 09/09/2013 09:36 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On 09/09/2013 08:22 PM, Wei Ni wrote:
On 09/09/2013 11:50 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 02:50:22PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 04:34:43AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On 09/09/2013 04:12 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
On 09/09/2013 08:40 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 09/09/2013 09:36 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On 09/09/2013 08:22 PM, Wei Ni wrote:
On 09/09/2013 11:50 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 02:50:22PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 04:34:43AM -0700, Guenter Roeck
On 09/10/2013 04:39 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
* PGP Signed by an unknown key
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 09:17:35AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 05:02:37PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
It does, though it gets complicated trying to use it for a case like
this since you can't
On 09/10/2013 11:53 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On 09/09/2013 08:40 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 09/09/2013 09:36 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On 09/09/2013 08:22 PM, Wei Ni wrote:
On 09/09/2013 11:50 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 02:50:22PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Sep
On 09/09/2013 09:53 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On 09/09/2013 08:40 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 09/09/2013 09:36 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
...
My understanding is that by adding regulator support you essentially
committed to adding regulators (if necessary dummy ones) for this driver
to all
On 09/09/2013 09:13 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 09/09/2013 09:53 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On 09/09/2013 08:40 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 09/09/2013 09:36 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
...
My understanding is that by adding regulator support you essentially
committed to adding regulators (if
On 09/09/2013 09:05 PM, Wei Ni wrote:
On 09/10/2013 04:39 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
* PGP Signed by an unknown key
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 09:17:35AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 05:02:37PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
It does, though it gets complicated trying to use it for
On 09/10/2013 12:50 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On 09/09/2013 09:05 PM, Wei Ni wrote:
On 09/10/2013 04:39 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
* PGP Signed by an unknown key
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 09:17:35AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 05:02:37PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
It does,
On 09/09/2013 10:39 PM, Wei Ni wrote:
On 09/10/2013 12:50 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On 09/09/2013 09:05 PM, Wei Ni wrote:
On 09/10/2013 04:39 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
* PGP Signed by an unknown key
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 09:17:35AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 05:02:37PM
66 matches
Mail list logo
