From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757464AbZBXCEP (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Feb 2009 21:04:15 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756334AbZBXCDy (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Feb 2009 21:03:54 -0500 Received: from smtp116.sbc.mail.sp1.yahoo.com ([69.147.64.89]:48026 "HELO smtp116.sbc.mail.sp1.yahoo.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1755294AbZBXCDx (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Feb 2009 21:03:53 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=pacbell.net; h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:From:To:Subject:Date:User-Agent:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Disposition:Message-Id; b=nRL0f4FHZN1/U51KXq8jbJ1GV/+AXLQ55WB//Hq57DPtzRTwyrBeikY9ej1C5w+D193bjPV8M1ZD+IE4o1NbKqKtbydvKSxq62pSsx56ALG7vyZE2UpR3gLikoqivGSZD9FZAhFtCKlIimJkepjipVVeDxCkYeECxDtBnzAfL+Q= ; X-YMail-OSG: bes5WQUVM1k04.8hbEf1UzedgGXO0EfDQ_uOtJmajSJMBN62gxRjFqrsAcHkI2w4tkqDBhWjK13whb9svE2Bn8b19XUmcy.ehQSU.ed2SJ688ndQQguzkWCh74DizRbVniU162DGgWy9OkKLbmfn00IuSSBVgvIiqWApOAC81ZSfreYBFef6bPVvKqnu X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 From: David Brownell To: Mark Brown Subject: Re: [patch 2.6.29-rc3-git 1/2] regulator: twl4030 regulators Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 18:03:49 -0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 Cc: Liam Girdwood , lkml , OMAP References: <200902081037.06645.david-b@pacbell.net> <200902231443.16334.david-b@pacbell.net> <20090224005536.GC3601@sirena.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20090224005536.GC3601@sirena.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200902231803.50059.david-b@pacbell.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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