From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Brown Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 2/5] regulator: omap smps regulator driver Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 07:55:26 +0900 Message-ID: <20110713225524.GA9770@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> References: <1310565638-13140-1-git-send-email-t-kristo@ti.com> <1310565638-13140-3-git-send-email-t-kristo@ti.com> <20110713144019.GA7861@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <1310572425.4331.96.camel@sokoban> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from opensource.wolfsonmicro.com ([80.75.67.52]:58568 "EHLO opensource2.wolfsonmicro.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752741Ab1GMWze (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jul 2011 18:55:34 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1310572425.4331.96.camel@sokoban> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Tero Kristo Cc: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, "Girdwood, Liam" , "Hilman, Kevin" On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 06:53:45PM +0300, Tero Kristo wrote: > On Wed, 2011-07-13 at 16:40 +0200, Mark Brown wrote: > > I do strongly prefer the idiom of just registering all the regulators > > even if they're read only. > Number of available SMPS regulators is kind of board specific issue. > OMAP3 has 2 available, OMAP4 has 3. If we are using some custom powering > solution, we might have even different amounts for these. Right, but the interface to them is always there? > > No, this is bad. We *always* pay attention to the constraints the user > > set even if they're nuts or won't work, the machine driver has the final > > say on what is or isn't allowed on a given board. The mode setting is > > especially suspect as there's no mode support in the driver. > Just a clarification on this one that I have understood your comment > right... Do you mean that I should be checking the constraints user sets > more thoroughly to see if there is something bogus? I was looking at > some of the other regulator drivers and they seem to be fiddling with > the constraints in similar manner. No! You should *always* use the constraints the user has set, don't randomly add new permissions without them doing so.