[PATCH] extcon: arizona: Use bypass mode for MICVDD

[PATCH] extcon: arizona: Use bypass mode for MICVDD

[Mark Brown]

We can perform microphone detection with MICVDD in bypass mode so try to
enable that during startup for minimal power - other users or machine
constraints will prevent bypass mode being activated if it is unsuitable.

Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
---

This depends on the newly added regulator bypass support which will be
going in during the merge window so probably the easiest thing here is
if I apply this to the regulator tree?  I will be publishing a signed
tag if you want to pull it in but for a simple, non-invasive change like
this it seems like more trouble than it's worth.

 drivers/extcon/extcon-arizona.c |    5 +++++
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/extcon/extcon-arizona.c b/drivers/extcon/extcon-arizona.c
index dc81d5f..cdab9e5 100644
--- a/drivers/extcon/extcon-arizona.c
+++ b/drivers/extcon/extcon-arizona.c
@@ -483,6 +483,11 @@ static int __devinit arizona_extcon_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 	regmap_update_bits(arizona->regmap, ARIZONA_JACK_DETECT_ANALOGUE,
 			   ARIZONA_JD1_ENA, ARIZONA_JD1_ENA);
 
+	ret = regulator_allow_bypass(info->micvdd, true);
+	if (ret != 0)
+		dev_warn(arizona->dev, "Failed to set MICVDD to bypass: %d\n",
+			 ret);
+
 	pm_runtime_put(&pdev->dev);
 
 	ret = input_register_device(info->input);
-- 
1.7.10.4

Re: [PATCH] extcon: arizona: Use bypass mode for MICVDD

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 05:44:51PM +0800, Mark Brown wrote:
> We can perform microphone detection with MICVDD in bypass mode so try to
> enable that during startup for minimal power - other users or machine
> constraints will prevent bypass mode being activated if it is unsuitable.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
> ---
> 
> This depends on the newly added regulator bypass support which will be
> going in during the merge window so probably the easiest thing here is
> if I apply this to the regulator tree?  I will be publishing a signed
> tag if you want to pull it in but for a simple, non-invasive change like
> this it seems like more trouble than it's worth.

No objection from me for you to take this through the regulator tree:

Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>