lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Feb]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] omap: board-omap3evm: add required smsc911x regulators
    On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 02:53:41PM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote:
    > * Matt Porter <mporter@ti.com> [120210 10:19]:
    > > On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 09:40:47AM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote:
    > > > * Matt Porter <matt@ohporter.com> [120208 13:35]:
    > > > > This fixes smsc911x support on omap3evm that has been broken since
    > > > > the smsc911x driver was updated to require the existence of vdd33a
    > > > > and vddvario supplies.
    > > >
    > > > Great. Few comments:
    > > >
    > > > 1. Could you please include the smsc911x commit and subject here too
    > > > so it clearly shows the regression?
    > >
    > > Sure. Will do for v2.
    > >
    > > > 2. Also, why don't you add this fixed regulator to gpmc-smsc911.c?
    > > >
    > > > That way it gets fixed for other too, like zoom2/3.
    > >
    > > Ok, so I considered that at first and had two concerns that made me just
    > > do it in the omap3evm specific way and see what the feedback was.
    > >
    > > 1) If we do a generic implementation in gpmc-smsc911x.c, there needs to
    > > be a way to override it. Another board may have a variable supply that
    > > feeds this consumer.
    > >
    > > 2) Technically, this omap3evm specific implementation matches the hardware
    > > in that the osk_3v3 rail is software controllable. Granted, I commented
    > > that we simply don't hook up the gpio at this time since this real
    > > hardware regulator has always been silently asserted on by the nature of
    > > the reset state of the TWL GPIOs and the board level pull downs as well.
    >
    > OK
    >
    > > So that said, I don't need #2 to make omap3evm work and I don't think
    > > anybody cares yet to actually turn that regulator off (as it will kill
    > > other things that appear to not have regulator support anyway). It looks
    > > like you talked me into respinning it as a generic implementation. Only
    > > question is whether I should bother consider not-yet-existing boards that
    > > may not want that generic regulator.
    >
    > Well for future boards the regulator should come from device tree,
    > so for now it should be safe to add it to gpmc-smsc911.c.

    Ok, sounds good. Posted an updated version.

    -Matt


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2012-02-13 17:47    [W:0.024 / U:60.128 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site