Re: [PATCH 3/3] MFD: MAX8997: IRQ definition moved to public header.

[Mark Brown]

On Fri, Jul 01, 2011 at 09:43:31AM +0900, MyungJoo Ham wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 12:56 AM, Mark Brown

> > This looks like charger specific configuration which should be done by
> > the charger driver rather than by directly working with the IRQs?

> Well, the issue is that the charger driver just does not know what to
> do with its own interrupts.

> For example, each board has different regulator setting for DCIN
> depending on the specification of the board (some uses 450mA
> constantly, some uses 450mA and 700mA depending on the connection
> information, which is not known to charger driver, some uses 900mA
> unconditionally, and so on).

That sounds like the charger driver just needs some platform data.

> Sometimes setting the attributes of a charger at its own interrupts
> depends on the status of another charger; when we have USB charger,
> wireless charger, and solar panels, which may be enabled independently
> and have their own device drivers.

My understanding was that one of the goals of the power_supply subsystem
was to support this sort of interaction?  This (and your subsequent
paragraphs) all sounds entirely sensible but it should be being dealt
with at a higher level with the various charger drivers delivering
events into a subsystem or board driver which coordinates them all.  It
seems like the driver should be doing the work of dealing with the
actual interrupts.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/