Re: [RFC PATCH] regulator: virtual: Introduce a new virtual locker regulator type

2014-05-02 Thread Mark Brown
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 09:13:39AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 6:28 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > > I glanced at this briefly and couldn't really understand what it was > > supposed to do from a quick glance but I do tend to agree that it's too > > complex and confusing.

Re: [RFC PATCH] regulator: virtual: Introduce a new virtual locker regulator type

2014-05-02 Thread Doug Anderson
Mark, On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 6:28 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 11:56:08AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > >> I cornered Rob and Mark Rutland a little bit about this at ELC today >> (sorry!). Neither of them was a huge ran of adding a pseudo device. >> Rob suggested that Mark

Re: [RFC PATCH] regulator: virtual: Introduce a new virtual locker regulator type

2014-05-02 Thread Doug Anderson
Mark, On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 6:28 PM, Mark Brown broo...@kernel.org wrote: On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 11:56:08AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: I cornered Rob and Mark Rutland a little bit about this at ELC today (sorry!). Neither of them was a huge ran of adding a pseudo device. Rob suggested

Re: [RFC PATCH] regulator: virtual: Introduce a new virtual locker regulator type

2014-05-02 Thread Mark Brown
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 09:13:39AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 6:28 PM, Mark Brown broo...@kernel.org wrote: I glanced at this briefly and couldn't really understand what it was supposed to do from a quick glance but I do tend to agree that it's too complex and

Re: [RFC PATCH] regulator: virtual: Introduce a new virtual locker regulator type

2014-04-30 Thread Mark Brown
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 11:56:08AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > I cornered Rob and Mark Rutland a little bit about this at ELC today > (sorry!). Neither of them was a huge ran of adding a pseudo device. > Rob suggested that Mark Brown might be the best person to give > direction here. Mark

Re: [RFC PATCH] regulator: virtual: Introduce a new virtual locker regulator type

2014-04-30 Thread Doug Anderson
Hi, On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 10:35 PM, Inderpal Singh wrote: > On some SoCs there could be requirements that two or more voltage > regulators need to maintain certain skew for proper functioning. > > This patch implements a new vitual locker type regulator which can > have multiple output and

Re: [RFC PATCH] regulator: virtual: Introduce a new virtual locker regulator type

2014-04-30 Thread Doug Anderson
Hi, On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 10:35 PM, Inderpal Singh inderpa...@samsung.com wrote: On some SoCs there could be requirements that two or more voltage regulators need to maintain certain skew for proper functioning. This patch implements a new vitual locker type regulator which can have

Re: [RFC PATCH] regulator: virtual: Introduce a new virtual locker regulator type

2014-04-30 Thread Mark Brown
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 11:56:08AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: I cornered Rob and Mark Rutland a little bit about this at ELC today (sorry!). Neither of them was a huge ran of adding a pseudo device. Rob suggested that Mark Brown might be the best person to give direction here. Mark Brown:

[RFC PATCH] regulator: virtual: Introduce a new virtual locker regulator type

2014-04-28 Thread Inderpal Singh
On some SoCs there could be requirements that two or more voltage regulators need to maintain certain skew for proper functioning. This patch implements a new vitual locker type regulator which can have multiple output and input regulators. The real regulators will be hidden under the virtual

[RFC PATCH] regulator: virtual: Introduce a new virtual locker regulator type

2014-04-28 Thread Inderpal Singh
On some SoCs there could be requirements that two or more voltage regulators need to maintain certain skew for proper functioning. This patch implements a new vitual locker type regulator which can have multiple output and input regulators. The real regulators will be hidden under the virtual