On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 12:24:02PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
quoted text
> On 04/06/10 19:19, Mark Brown wrote:

quoted text
> > TBH this seems like a very vanilla use case - there may be some small
> > advantage to representing the internal regulator via the regulator API
> > but that's about the only thing I can think might be a bit odd.

quoted text
> I wasn't thinking of representing the internal regulator using the regulator
> framework (though if it is externally available I guess that would make sense
> though probably only if anyone is actually using this to supply something else
> - most likely case I can think of is daisy chaining multiple adc's and ensuring
> they have the same reference value).

Like I say, I think this is likely to be a small benefit from that.  The
rest of what you're doing seems very vanilla.

quoted text
> Nothing new here, but there will be a number of consumers that care about changes
> in voltage (rather than typically controlling it.)  Hence I'm welcoming the change
> just agreed upon.

Note that you're not going to see any difference you can actually use
here - you still have to handle the possibility that you've got an
actual regulator but for some reason fail to read a voltage from it
which is the same behaviour that you see from the dummy regulator.
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/