Re: [patch 2.6.29-rc3-git 1/2] regulator: twl4030 regulators

[David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>]

On Monday 23 February 2009, Mark Brown wrote:
> The change to add voltage range constraints if none were supplied is a
> noticable policy change from the existing framework standard - it allows
> machines to enable voltage changes without specifying what the valid
> values are. 

"Whatever the hardware handles" *is* a specification.

And there's no more assurance it's right than any
other specification would be ... except that, as a
rule, hardware designers like to avoid assemblies
subject to trivial misconfiguration mistakes (like
firing up a 2.5V-max rail at 5V).


> I'm not convinced that this is a good idea in the first 
> place and it will result in the opposite behaviour to the current core
> code (which should end up erroring out in constraint checking at runtime).

Well, if you really dislike it so much, that can
easily be removed.  Got any comments on the
framework patch I sent?  I'll take that as the
first one, even though it's a different thread.

- Dave