RE: [PATCH 3/5] drm/bridge: Add PTN3460 bridge driver

[Inki Dae]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Brown [mailto:broonie@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 6:37 PM
> To: Inki Dae
> Cc: 'Olof Johansson'; 'Sean Paul'; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> samsung-soc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-doc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'DRI mailing list'; linux-arm-
> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] drm/bridge: Add PTN3460 bridge driver
> 
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 01:18:05PM +0900, Inki Dae wrote:
> 
> > > > I still think the pin could be replaced with a regulator. But
> > > > lvds-bridge node has "powerdown-gpio" property - it say this board
> > > > will use gpio pin - specific to board.  So it seems no problem.
> 
> > > No, don't model things that aren't regulators as regulators - it's
> > > just confusing from a usability standpoint and causes breakage when
> > > the pins don't behave like regulators.
> 
> > It seems that there was your missing point. That _is not_ what I
> mentioned.
> > I mean that other boards can use a regulator instead of gpio pin.
> 
> What I'm saying is no boards should use a regulator to control that GPIO
> pin, obviously if they're controlling the actual regulators that's fine

That is what I mentioned. Some boards _could control_ the actual regulator
for lvds-bridge, and that would be depended on how HW engineer designs the
board. 

> but the reset signal should not be controlled via the regulator API (there
> are some unfortunate cases where people have done that already but let's
> not have any more).

--
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/