Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 8 Mar 2008 19:16:17 -0800 | From | Greg KH <> | Subject | Re: [UPDATED v3][PATCH 4/7] regulator: framework core |
| |
On Sat, Mar 08, 2008 at 09:18:59PM +0000, Liam Girdwood wrote: > On Fri, 2008-03-07 at 23:41 -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 10:19:51PM +0000, Liam Girdwood wrote: > > > On Fri, 2008-03-07 at 08:10 -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 06:11:54PM +0000, Liam Girdwood wrote: > > > > > > > > +/** > > > > > + * struct regulator_cdev > > > > > + * > > > > > + * Voltage / Current regulator class device. One for each regulator. > > > > > + */ > > > > > +struct regulator_cdev { > > > > > + struct regulator_desc *desc; > > > > > + int use_count; > > > > > + > > > > > + struct list_head list; > > > > > + struct list_head consumer_list; > > > > > + struct blocking_notifier_head notifier; > > > > > + struct mutex mutex; /* consumer lock */ > > > > > + struct module *owner; > > > > > + struct class_device cdev; > > > > > > > > Can you change this to use a "struct device" instead? We are trying to > > > > get rid of class_device, and there are only 3 users of it in the kernel > > > > today (memorystick, infiniband, and scsi), and I have patches pending to > > > > fix all of these. For 2.6.26 I would like to be rid of it finally. > > > > > > > > If you want, I would be glad to fix this up for you, it should be a > > > > pretty simple replacement. > > > > > > > > > > Yes please. Much appreciated :) > > > > Ok, it's below, on top of your patch series. If you want me to merge it > > in, I can do that as well. It's a bit big, as I renamed "cdev" to "dev" > > in your structure names and variable names as it isn't a class device > > anymore. > > Thanks. I've now committed into Wolfson git. I'll give it a spin on real > hardware early next week and then send to Andrew. > > > > > > > > + struct regulation_constraints *constraints; > > > > > + struct regulator_cdev *parent; /* for tree */ > > > > > > > > And if when you convert, you can get rid of this pointer, it would not > > > > be needed. > > > > > > Fwiw, the regulator-parent relationship is established by the platform > > > code after the regulator driver has registered all the regulator > > > devices. I assume we can just device_move() to re-parent. > > > > Ick, no, just pass the parent into the regulator_register() function. > > Otherwise you will get some wierd uevents spit out (run udevmonitor to > > see what I mean.) You should set up the parent linkage before you > > register the device with the driver core. > > Sorry, I think the 'parent' naming is a little confusing. The device > parent would be set at register time and the 'supply' would be set later > during platform power config.
Heh, we both are confused here. Your statement is exactly what I was recommending :)
Feel free to CC: me on your next round of patches if you want me to review them.
thanks,
greg k-h
| |