All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>, Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org>,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] regulator: Add coupled regulator
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 16:46:49 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160121154649.GE3997@lukather> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160118162538.GH6588@sirena.org.uk>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1862 bytes --]

Hi,

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 04:25:38PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > >   - When you come to consider it from an hardware point of view, the
> > >     device usually have a single pin that powers it. It's the board
> > >     designer that chose to route that pin to multiple regulators, so
> > >     it's really the board that is wired that way, and putting that
> > >     code in the consumer drivers would be an abstraction leak imho.
> 
> > That's a good point. Perhaps the regulator core needs to be able to 
> > parse the list and return the single ptr to the virtual regulator.
> 
> Exactly, if we don't want to represent the combination directly.  For
> most uses it's probably OK but I can see us in a situation where we
> might want to do things like only use one of the regulators in low load
> situations where we might want to attach properties to the merge of the
> two regulators rather than just referencing them both.  I'm not sure
> that's realistic though or that we wouldn't just be working that use
> case out dynamically at runtime.
> 
> I'm ambivalent on which way is better, it does complicate the
> implementation to support doing this as lists and while it makes the DT
> more elegant I'm not clear that it's worth the effort especially when it
> comes to constraint combining.  But perhaps the implementation turns out
> to be simpler than I would anticiapte.

I guess a separate driver would make it easier to deal with cases like
the one you suggested (shutting down when the load is going to be
lower). I don't see how we could have a good DT representation of that
if we're going to use lists.

Anyway, I'm fine with both approaches, just let me know what you
prefer.

Thanks!
Maxime

-- 
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com (Maxime Ripard)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 1/2] regulator: Add coupled regulator
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 16:46:49 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160121154649.GE3997@lukather> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160118162538.GH6588@sirena.org.uk>

Hi,

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 04:25:38PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > >   - When you come to consider it from an hardware point of view, the
> > >     device usually have a single pin that powers it. It's the board
> > >     designer that chose to route that pin to multiple regulators, so
> > >     it's really the board that is wired that way, and putting that
> > >     code in the consumer drivers would be an abstraction leak imho.
> 
> > That's a good point. Perhaps the regulator core needs to be able to 
> > parse the list and return the single ptr to the virtual regulator.
> 
> Exactly, if we don't want to represent the combination directly.  For
> most uses it's probably OK but I can see us in a situation where we
> might want to do things like only use one of the regulators in low load
> situations where we might want to attach properties to the merge of the
> two regulators rather than just referencing them both.  I'm not sure
> that's realistic though or that we wouldn't just be working that use
> case out dynamically at runtime.
> 
> I'm ambivalent on which way is better, it does complicate the
> implementation to support doing this as lists and while it makes the DT
> more elegant I'm not clear that it's worth the effort especially when it
> comes to constraint combining.  But perhaps the implementation turns out
> to be simpler than I would anticiapte.

I guess a separate driver would make it easier to deal with cases like
the one you suggested (shutting down when the load is going to be
lower). I don't see how we could have a good DT representation of that
if we're going to use lists.

Anyway, I'm fine with both approaches, just let me know what you
prefer.

Thanks!
Maxime

-- 
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20160121/4c321625/attachment.sig>

  reply	other threads:[~2016-01-21 15:46 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-01-12 13:37 [PATCH v2 0/2] regulator: Add support for parallel regulators Maxime Ripard
2016-01-12 13:37 ` Maxime Ripard
2016-01-12 13:37 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] regulator: Add coupled regulator Maxime Ripard
2016-01-12 13:37   ` Maxime Ripard
2016-01-12 14:31   ` Rob Herring
2016-01-12 14:31     ` Rob Herring
2016-01-15  8:57     ` Maxime Ripard
2016-01-15  8:57       ` Maxime Ripard
2016-01-17  0:04       ` Rob Herring
2016-01-17  0:04         ` Rob Herring
2016-01-17  0:04         ` Rob Herring
2016-01-18 16:25         ` Mark Brown
2016-01-18 16:25           ` Mark Brown
2016-01-18 16:25           ` Mark Brown
2016-01-21 15:46           ` Maxime Ripard [this message]
2016-01-21 15:46             ` Maxime Ripard
2016-01-21 16:28             ` Mark Brown
2016-01-21 16:28               ` Mark Brown
2016-02-05 14:33               ` Maxime Ripard
2016-02-05 14:33                 ` Maxime Ripard
2016-02-05 14:33                 ` Maxime Ripard
2016-02-05 15:32                 ` Mark Brown
2016-02-05 15:32                   ` Mark Brown
2016-02-05 15:32                   ` Mark Brown
2016-11-07 15:47                   ` Maxime Ripard
2016-11-07 15:47                     ` Maxime Ripard
2016-11-07 15:47                     ` Maxime Ripard
2016-11-11 16:46                     ` Mark Brown
2016-11-11 16:46                       ` Mark Brown
2016-01-12 13:37 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] ARM: sunxi: chip: Add Wifi chip Maxime Ripard
2016-01-12 13:37   ` Maxime Ripard
2016-01-12 13:37   ` Maxime Ripard

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20160121154649.GE3997@lukather \
    --to=maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com \
    --cc=broonie@kernel.org \
    --cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lgirdwood@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=robh@kernel.org \
    --cc=wens@csie.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.