Re: [PATCH V4 2/2] regulator: mt6323: Add support for MT6323 regulator

From: Henry Chen
Date: Thu Jan 28 2016 - 02:16:57 EST


Hi Mark,

On Wed, 2016-01-27 at 14:41 +0000, 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->constraints;
> > + c->valid_modes_mask |= REGULATOR_MODE_NORMAL |
> > + REGULATOR_MODE_STANDBY;
> > + c->valid_ops_mask |= REGULATOR_CHANGE_MODE;
>
> 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 that the system integrator can enable
> the functionality that is safe on a given board.

Okay..the constrains should be define on device tree.
But which optional properties was suitable to fill on device tree if consumers want to call
regulator_set_mode directly ?
I have check the of_regulator.c and not found the suitable property name which can set valid_modes_mask & valid_ops_mask.

Thanks,
Henry
>
> The comment is also inaccurate, it claims it's imposing constraints but
> in fact it's adding additional permissions.
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-mediatek mailing list
> Linux-mediatek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mediatek