lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Nov]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/3] soc_camera: Add the ability to bind regulators to soc_camedra devices
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 08:05:06PM +0100, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Nov 2010, Alberto Panizzo wrote:

> > In certain machines, camera devices are supplied directly
> > by a number of regulators. This patch add the ability to drive
> > these regulators directly by the soc_camera driver.

> IIRC, there has been a discussion a while ago, how to supply power to
> cameras by regulators. Someone has tried to provide a .power() hook in the
> platform code, but the problem was the order of driver loading / probing.
> So, how about doing the following:

> 1. in your platform code you register a notifier like
> bus_register_notifier(&soc_camera_bus_type, &cam_notifier);

FWIW I'm looking at implementing a standard regulator API feature along
these lines in the background. This should hopefully mean we don't need
driver support for most simple power control applications. No ETA yet.

> The reasons why I do not want to add this to the core are: (1) I do not
> want to have two methods for turning power on and off: a platform provided
> .power() hook and and a set of regulators, (2) would anyone really want to
> use several regulators for a camera sensor? If so, can it be the case,
> that, for example, the regulators have to be switched off in the reverse
> order to switching on? Or something else? (3) regulators can often do
> more, than just set one of two power levels - for on and off. What if a
> need arises to use other voltages?

The way MMC handled this was to provide a standard version of the hook
in the core which could be used by platforms with regulators supplying
the device - they just assign the appropriate function as their power()
operation AIUI. That seems a fairly clean way of keeping stuff in the
core without giving up the flexibility.

> Is there any really good reason, why we _have_ to do this in soc-camera
> core?

It does save everyone open coding stuff.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-11-29 16:47    [W:0.109 / U:12.204 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site