ARM: S3C64XX: Hook up VDDINT on Cragganmore
Subsystems (3)
PATCH 1/1 ARM: S3C64XX: Hook up VDDINT on Cragganmore
Basic hookup, we do have a GPIO to use to control the voltage but we don't currently use it.
--- arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/mach-crag6410.c | 7 +++++++ 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/mach-crag6410.c +7 -0
@@ -381,6 +381,10 @@ static struct regulator_init_data vddarm __initdata = { .driver_data = &vddarm_pdata, }; +static struct regulator_consumer_supply vddint_consumers[]__initdata = { +REGULATOR_SUPPLY ("vddint" ,NULL ), +}; +static struct regulator_init_data vddint__initdata = { .constraints = { .name ="VDDINT" ,
@@ -389,6 +393,9 @@ static struct regulator_init_data vddint __initdata = { .always_on = 1, .valid_ops_mask = REGULATOR_CHANGE_VOLTAGE, }, + .num_consumer_supplies = ARRAY_SIZE(vddint_consumers), + .consumer_supplies = vddint_consumers, + .supply_regulator = "WALLVDD", }; static struct regulator_init_data vddmem __initdata = {
Signature · 1 line
1.7.7.3
PATCH 1/1 ARM: S3C64XX: Hook up VDDINT on Cragganmore
Quoted 14 lines · Mark Brown
Basic hookup, we do have a GPIO to use to control the voltage but we don't currently use it.
Signed-off-by Mark Brown <[email protected]>--- arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/mach-crag6410.c | 7 +++++++ 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/mach-crag6410.c +0
-0
arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/mach-crag6410.c static struct regulator_init_data vddarm __initdata = { · line 385
Quoted 5 lines
arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/mach-crag6410.c +2
-0@@ -381,6 +381,10 @@ static struct regulator_init_data vddarm __initdata = { .driver_data = &vddarm_pdata, }; +static struct regulator_consumer_supply vddint_consumers[]__initdata = { +REGULATOR_SUPPLY ("vddint" ,NULL ),
Now there's mixed usage for vddint. until s5pc110 it uses the 'vddint' but after exynos it uses the 'vdd_int'. either is okay but need to use the same name for consistency?
How do you think?
Thank you,
Kyungmin Park
Quoted 24 lines
arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/mach-crag6410.c +5
-1+}; +static struct regulator_init_data vddint__initdata = { .constraints = { .name ="VDDINT" ,@@ -389,6 +393,9 @@ static struct regulator_init_data vddint __initdata = { .always_on = 1, .valid_ops_mask = REGULATOR_CHANGE_VOLTAGE, }, + .num_consumer_supplies = ARRAY_SIZE(vddint_consumers), + .consumer_supplies = vddint_consumers, + .supply_regulator = "WALLVDD", }; static struct regulator_init_data vddmem __initdata = { --1.7.7.3
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
PATCH 1/1 ARM: S3C64XX: Hook up VDDINT on Cragganmore
Quoted 7 lines · Kyungmin Park
arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/mach-crag6410.c static struct regulator_init_data vddarm __initdata = { · line 385
Quoted 1 line
arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/mach-crag6410.c +1
-0+ REGULATOR_SUPPLY("vddint", NULL),Now there's mixed usage for vddint. until s5pc110 it uses the 'vddint' but after exynos it uses the '
vdd_int'. either is okay but need to use the same name for consistency?How do you think?
I don't really care either way. I called it vddint because the existing s3c64xx ARM core supply is called vddarm by software so I was also going for consistency here :) . If we want to ensure consistency we should just pick something and move to it, though I don't know if it's really worth the effort.
PATCH 1/1 ARM: S3C64XX: Hook up VDDINT on Cragganmore
Quoted 9 lines · Mark Brown
Quoted 5 lines · Kyungmin Park
arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/mach-crag6410.c static struct regulator_init_data vddarm __initdata = { · line 385
Quoted 1 line
arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/mach-crag6410.c +1
-0+ REGULATOR_SUPPLY("vddint", NULL),Now there's mixed usage for vddint. until s5pc110 it uses the 'vddint' but after exynos it uses the '
vdd_int'. either is okay but need to use the same name for consistency?
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 1 line
How do you think?
I don't really care either way. I called it vddint because the existing s3c64xx ARM core supply is called vddarm by software so I was also going for consistency here :) . If we want to ensure consistency we should just pick something and move to it, though I don't know if it's really worth the effort.
Yes, I think so. If required, let's move it later.
Looks ok to me, will apply.
Thanks.
Best regards,
Kgene.
--
Kukjin Kim <[email protected]>, Senior Engineer, SW Solution Development Team, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.