Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 20 Mar 2017 12:06:15 +0000 | From | Mark Brown <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] regulator: core: add regulator_has_continuous_voltage_range() |
| |
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 05:03:30PM -0700, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> In principle I totally agree with you that consumers should be able > to enumerate the supported voltages with the existing functions. And > they can, as long as they already know (or assume) that the regulator > they are using actually has discrete steps, otherwise they might get > unexpected results.
Given the limits of number representation continuous regulators also have discrete steps, they just have a lot of them (but so do some regulators we currently say aren't continuous so...).
> You are right that my case is very specialist, however I think it is > a general problem that a consumer can't know whether the results of > _list_voltage(), etc correspond to the regulator itself or to its > supplies. E.g. a consumer might have a continuous reg which is > supplied by a discrete reg, in this case _list_voltage() would return > the steps of the supply reg, which is probably not what most consumers > expect.
No, this is doesn't make much sense! Why should we be reporting properties of the parent regulator when the child regulator is regulating away all visibility of those properties?
> > > Please see my explication above on why the vctrl driver needs to know > > > this.
> > I'm seeing nothing in the above that addresses my question, you don't > > even seem to have mentioned supplies.
> Sorry, I really didn't try to evade your question. Does it make more > sense with the example above?
No, not at all.
> > What we should be doing for continuous regulators is allowing people to > > list the supported voltages as they would for other regulators.
> In the overall regulator context this may make sense, at this point I > don't really have enough background on the subsystem to have an > informed opinion.
> From the vctrl perspective I wouldn't be overly happy, since it > wouldn't allow to distinguish between continuous and discrete > supplies, and I still think that handling discrete supplies > differently is simpler/more efficient. This doesn't mean I argue > against your proposal if it is deemed the right thing from a subsystem > perspective.
If it helps think of a continuous regulator as a discrete regulator with a base voltage of 0 and steps of 1uV. [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |