lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Nov]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Doubt about Regulator Framework and VBAT use case
Forgot to add Liam into Cc. Doing it so.


On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:41:02AM +0100, Valentin Eduardo (Nokia-D/Helsinki) wrote:
> Hello Mark and Liam,
>
> I'm writing to ask about VBAT use case. What is the expected
> way to use regulator framework in case of rail coming from battery?
> Should it be added to the regulator framework at all?
>
> In that case, the rail should not be controllable. So I don't see
> any reason to add it to the regulator framework board definitions,
> as we should not be controlling it.
>
> However, drivers for devices on that rail would require their regulator anyway.
> And I guess the point would be that drivers should not be aware that they are on VBAT
> or any other rail.
>
> So, what's the correct way to solve this?
>
> - Should drivers fail nicely if a regulator_get fail? And continue even if one fails.
> - Should drivers disable regfw usage completely in the driver if regulator_get doesn't
> give valid regulator ?
> - or Should a fake fixed regulator be added for vbat so drivers can still get a valid
> regulator with regulator_get.
>
> The last options seams to be the one that does not require much changes on drivers.
> But it will be adding a regulator that does basically nothing in the system.
>
> BR,
>
> --
> Eduardo Valentin
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

--
Eduardo Valentin


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-11-30 11:53    [W:2.077 / U:0.020 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site