On 27/01/2016 15:41, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 01:00:59PM +0100, John Crispin wrote:
>
>> + /* Constrain board-specific capabilities according to what
>> + * this driver and the chip itself can actually do.
>> + */
>> + c = rdev->constraints;
>> + c->valid_modes_mask |= REGULATOR_MODE_NORMAL |
>> + REGULATOR_MODE_STANDBY;
>> + c->valid_ops_mask |= REGULATOR_CHANGE_MODE;
>
> No, drivers should *never* enable things that weren't explictly enabled
> by the machine constraints. This misses the whole point of having
> constraints. They are there so that the system integrator can enable
> the functionality that is safe on a given board.
>
> The comment is also inaccurate, it claims it's imposing constraints but
> in fact it's adding additional permissions.
>
Hi Mark
would the following two bindings be ok ? I would create patches to add them.
* regulator-allow-mode; or regulator-allow-change-mode;
* regulator-modes = <REGULATOR_MODE_NORMAL REGULATOR_MODE_STANDBY>;
John
