On Mon, 10 Dec 2012, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 02:28:36PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > > On Mon, 10 Dec 2012, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > This really isn't a good solution, especially not for a system that's DT > > > based - on a DT system we can tell if there should be a GPIO present so > > > we should be able to defer only when there's something that might > > > provide the GPIO later on. > > > Understood, but what's the solution for non-DT systems? > > Provide a fixed regulator or something, perhaps we need a "definitely > does not exist" regulator to help with this. For every board you help > with a sequencing bodge you're probably going to break another that > needs different sequencing; for that matter it's not like GPIO > controlled regulators are exclusively used for MMC, or that MMC > exclusively uses GPIO - doing this for only one regulator is a bit of a > red flag.
I understand your logic, hence why I wrote such a lengthy commit message. However, I'm not sure I see a logical way around it. Asking all users of MMCI to provide a not-regulator to declare that a secondary regulator isn't available seems a little unreasonable to me. Is there anything else we can do? -- Lee Jones Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
