Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:43:53 +0200 | From | Eduardo Valentin <> | Subject | Re: 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
| |