Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 20 Oct 2011 10:21:42 -0500 | From | Kyle Manna <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 5/6] mfd: TPS65910: Fix tps65910_set_voltage |
| |
Hi Mark,
I've reviewed the patch and the core regulator framework after reading your comments. This patch worked around a subtle bug that I didn't notice and is hence not needed. The root cause was fixed and the voltage selectors work as desired.
Will update the patch series and resend.
- Kyle
On 10/19/2011 08:32 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 01:26:27PM -0500, Kyle Manna wrote: > > *Always* CC maintainers on patches. > >> Previously tps65910_set_voltage() only selected from a fixed number of >> voltages. Rename that function to tps65910_set_voltage_sel(). Do the >> same for tps65911_set_voltage(). > What is the issue being fixed here? This looks like a stylistic change > rateher than a bug fix. > >> Also add a tps65910_set_voltage that works with the regulator framework >> and applies the correct voltage with apply_uv is set in the regulator's >> constraints. > So this is adding support for a new chip? Whatever the answer it's > clearly a distinct change from the above and should therefore be a > separate patch. > >> + /* Pick the nearest selector */ >> + for (i = 0; i< tps65910_regs[id].table_len; i++) { >> + new_uV = tps65910_regs[id].table[i] * 1000; >> + >> + if (new_uV>= min_uV&& new_uV<= max_uV&& >> + (abs(new_uV - midpoint)< abs(selected_uV - midpoint))) { >> + *selector = i; >> + selected_uV = tps65910_regs[id].table[i] * 1000; >> + } >> + } > This looks wrong, the expected behaviour for the regulator API is that > the driver will pick the minimum voltage within the range. Why is this > being done?
| |