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:

quoted

+		/* 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 at lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mediatek