On Thu, 2009-03-26 at 16:21 +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote:
From 51f946af56a5de9c25b2eb6e6a33660283f84195 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Adrian Hunter adrian.hun...@nokia.com
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 14:51:30 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] regulator: twl4030 VAUX3 supports 3.0V
TWL4030 and TWL5030 support
From 51f946af56a5de9c25b2eb6e6a33660283f84195 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Adrian Hunter adrian.hun...@nokia.com
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 14:51:30 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] regulator: twl4030 VAUX3 supports 3.0V
TWL4030 and TWL5030 support 3.0V on VAUX3.
Signed-off-by: Adrian Hunter adrian.hun
Liam Girdwood wrote:
On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 09:36 +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote:
Liam Girdwood wrote:
On Fri, 2009-03-06 at 14:48 -0800, David Brownell wrote:
On Friday 06 March 2009, Mark Brown wrote:
Would it make sense to make this platform data so that if a given board
requires running the
On Wednesday 25 March 2009, Adrian Hunter wrote:
http://community.ti.com/forums/p/3777/14574.aspx
So how do we do it?
I'd prefer seeing the reply from Ghandar to David's last question before
accepting this patch again. It's still not 100% clear from TI, things
seem a little bit
Liam Girdwood wrote:
On Fri, 2009-03-06 at 14:48 -0800, David Brownell wrote:
On Friday 06 March 2009, Mark Brown wrote:
Would it make sense to make this platform data so that if a given board
requires running the chip like this it can be enabled for those boards
but it's not something people
On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 09:36 +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote:
Liam Girdwood wrote:
On Fri, 2009-03-06 at 14:48 -0800, David Brownell wrote:
On Friday 06 March 2009, Mark Brown wrote:
Would it make sense to make this platform data so that if a given board
requires running the chip like this it
On Fri, 2009-03-06 at 14:48 -0800, David Brownell wrote:
On Friday 06 March 2009, Mark Brown wrote:
Would it make sense to make this platform data so that if a given board
requires running the chip like this it can be enabled for those boards
but it's not something people might turn on
TWL4030 and TWL5030 support 3.0V on VAUX3.
Signed-off-by: Adrian Hunter adrian.hun...@nokia.com
---
According to TI:
http://community.ti.com/forums/t/3777.aspx
drivers/regulator/twl4030-regulator.c |2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git
On Fri, 2009-03-06 at 15:01 +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote:
TWL4030 and TWL5030 support 3.0V on VAUX3.
Signed-off-by: Adrian Hunter adrian.hun...@nokia.com
Applied.
Thanks
Liam
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-omap in
the body of a message to
On Friday 06 March 2009, Adrian Hunter wrote:
TWL4030 and TWL5030 support 3.0V on VAUX3.
I double checked several technical reference manuals, and they
say otherwise. The 3.0V settings in VAUX3_DEDICATED are very
consistently labeled as TI cannot support these values, for
all current versions
On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 11:16:20AM -0800, David Brownell wrote:
Do you really need 3.0V out of that regulator? If so,
then I'd rather see a patch exposing that CONFIG_*
setting to enable all the unsupported/out-of-range
values, rather than just selectively hacking those
tables to permit
On Friday 06 March 2009, Mark Brown wrote:
Would it make sense to make this platform data so that if a given board
requires running the chip like this it can be enabled for those boards
but it's not something people might turn on because it seems useful?
Let's hear if it's actually needed,
12 matches
Mail list logo
