Hi Chen,
[auto build test ERROR on regulator/for-next]
[also build test ERROR on v4.5-rc3 next-20160208]
[if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help
improving the system]
url:
https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/John-Crispin/regulator-Add-document-for-
On Wed, 2016-02-03 at 12:29 +, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 01:39:02PM +0800, menghui lin wrote:
> > On Tue, 2016-02-02 at 19:38 +, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > > How does the driver know if it needs to change the mode (ie, how can it
> > > tell if the current mode is inadequate)
On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 01:39:02PM +0800, menghui lin wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-02-02 at 19:38 +, Mark Brown wrote:
> > How does the driver know if it needs to change the mode (ie, how can it
> > tell if the current mode is inadequate) and surely if we can only change
> > in one direction this isn
On Tue, 2016-02-02 at 19:38 +, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 08:11:19PM +0800, menghui lin wrote:
> > On Fri, 2016-01-29 at 12:27 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > > None of this is answering my question - I know what the current API is,
> > > describing it doesn't tell me about act
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 08:11:19PM +0800, menghui lin wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-01-29 at 12:27 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > None of this is answering my question - I know what the current API is,
> > describing it doesn't tell me about actual users or how they are able to
> > sensibly use the interfac
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 08:11:19PM +0800, menghui lin wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-01-29 at 12:27 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > None of this is answering my question - I know what the current API is,
> > describing it doesn't tell me about actual users or how they are able to
> > sensibly use the interfac
On Fri, 2016-01-29 at 12:27 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 05:52:14PM +0800, menghui lin wrote:
> > On Fri, 2016-01-29 at 00:13 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > > I'm not convinced this binding makes sense, how would a user of the API
> > > (currently there are none in tree) know
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 05:52:14PM +0800, menghui lin wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-01-29 at 00:13 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > I'm not convinced this binding makes sense, how would a user of the API
> > (currently there are none in tree) know what the modes mean? It's a bit
> > different when the user i
On Fri, 2016-01-29 at 00:13 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 07:13:48PM +0100, John Crispin wrote:
>
> > would the following two bindings be ok ? I would create patches to add them.
>
> > * regulator-allow-mode; or regulator-allow-change-mode;
>
> This seems redundant, if we ha
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 07:13:48PM +0100, John Crispin wrote:
> would the following two bindings be ok ? I would create patches to add them.
> * regulator-allow-mode; or regulator-allow-change-mode;
This seems redundant, if we have a list of valid modes presumably they
can be used - same idea as
On 27/01/2016 15:41, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 01:00:59PM +0100, John Crispin wrote:
>
>> +/* Constrain board-specific capabilities according to what
>> + * this driver and the chip itself can actually do.
>> + */
>> +c = rdev->co
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 03:16:41PM +0800, Henry Chen wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-01-27 at 14:41 +, Mark Brown wrote:
> > No, drivers should *never* enable things that weren't explictly enabled
> > by the machine constraints. This misses the whole point of having
> > constraints. They are there so
Hi Mark,
On Wed, 2016-01-27 at 14:41 +, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 01:00:59PM +0100, John Crispin wrote:
>
> > + /* Constrain board-specific capabilities according to what
> > +* this driver and the chip itself can actually do.
> > +*/
> > +
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 01:00:59PM +0100, John Crispin wrote:
> + /* Constrain board-specific capabilities according to what
> + * this driver and the chip itself can actually do.
> + */
> + c = rdev->constraints;
> + c->valid_modes_mas
From: Chen Zhong
The MT6323 is a regulator found on boards based on MediaTek MT7623 and
probably other SoCs. It is a so called pmic and connects as a slave to
SoC using SPI, wrapped inside the pmic-wrapper.
Signed-off-by: Chen Zhong
Signed-off-by: John Crispin
---
Changes in V4:
* add id_tabl
15 matches
Mail list logo
