On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 09:04:32AM -0700, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Thu 02 Jun 08:50 PDT 2016, Mark Brown wrote:
> > It's more natural to use a separate set of ops, and we can optimise a
> > few things if we know the regulator is a fixed voltage one.
> In my view a fixed regulator is a thing th
On Thu 02 Jun 08:50 PDT 2016, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 03:57:42PM +0100, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
> > On 02/06/16 15:49, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > > Why is this better than using a separate set of ops for the driver?
>
> > Am ok either way, it would be just few more lines for
On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 03:57:42PM +0100, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
> On 02/06/16 15:49, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Why is this better than using a separate set of ops for the driver?
> Am ok either way, it would be just few more lines for separate set of ops.
It's more natural to use a separate set
On 02/06/16 15:49, Mark Brown wrote:
On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 11:23:16AM +0100, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
This patch converts a fixed voltage pm8941 lnldo to a single step
linear range regulator, so that we could use the same list_volatage
callback without BUG_ON from regulator core.
Why is
On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 11:23:16AM +0100, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
> This patch converts a fixed voltage pm8941 lnldo to a single step
> linear range regulator, so that we could use the same list_volatage
> callback without BUG_ON from regulator core.
Why is this better than using a separate set
This patch converts a fixed voltage pm8941 lnldo to a single step
linear range regulator, so that we could use the same list_volatage
callback without BUG_ON from regulator core.
Signed-off-by: Srinivas Kandagatla
---
drivers/regulator/qcom_smd-regulator.c | 5 -
1 file changed, 4 insertions
6 matches
Mail list logo
