lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Apr]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] regulator: Add Freescale's MC34708 regulators
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 12:38:41AM +0800, Ying-Chun Liu (PaulLiu) wrote:

> +static const int mc34708_sw1A[] = {
> + 650000, 662500, 675000, 687500, 700000, 712500,

Replace these by direct calculations, using tables is both less
efficient and less clear.

> + mc34708_lock(priv->mc34708);
> + ret = mc34708_reg_rmw(priv->mc34708, mc34708_regulators[id].reg,
> + mc34708_regulators[id].enable_bit,
> + mc34708_regulators[id].enable_bit);
> + mc34708_unlock(priv->mc34708);

Having to open code this locking in every single driver is a bit
painful; just have the default register I/O operations do the locking
and introduce additional unlocked versions if needed.

All this stuff could be factored out if you were using regmap.

> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(mc34708_regulator_list_voltage);

No, this stuff should only be accessed via the ops. Why are you doing
this?

> +int
> +mc34708_get_best_voltage_index(struct regulator_dev *rdev,
> + int min_uV, int max_uV)
> +{

You're reimplementing core functionality here, or it'd be even better to
use calculations.

> +static int mc34708_regulator_get_voltage(struct regulator_dev *rdev)
> +{

Why is this not get_voltage_sel?

> +static struct regulator_ops mc34708_regulator_ops = {
> + .enable = mc34708_regulator_enable,
> + .disable = mc34708_regulator_disable,
> + .is_enabled = mc34708_regulator_is_enabled,
> + .list_voltage = mc34708_regulator_list_voltage,
> + .set_voltage = mc34708_regulator_set_voltage,
> + .get_voltage = mc34708_regulator_get_voltage,
> +};
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(mc34708_regulator_ops);

No. What are you doing this for?

> +int
> +mc34708_fixed_regulator_set_voltage(struct regulator_dev *rdev, int min_uV,
> + int max_uV, unsigned *selector)

This function makes no sense...

> +int mc34708_sw_regulator_is_enabled(struct regulator_dev *rdev)
> +{
> + return 1;
> +}

Why are you doing this - this function is redundant.

> + ret = mc34708_reg_rmw(mc34708, MC34708_SW12OP,
> + MC34708_SW12OP_SW1AMODE_M |
> + MC34708_SW12OP_SW2MODE_M,
> + MC34708_SW12OP_SW1AMODE_VALUE |
> + MC34708_SW12OP_SW2MODE_VALUE);
> + if (ret)
> + goto err_free;
> +
> + ret = mc34708_reg_rmw(mc34708, MC34708_SW345OP,
> + MC34708_SW345OP_SW3MODE_M |
> + MC34708_SW345OP_SW4AMODE_M |
> + MC34708_SW345OP_SW4BMODE_M |
> + MC34708_SW345OP_SW5MODE_M,
> + MC34708_SW345OP_SW3MODE_VALUE |
> + MC34708_SW345OP_SW4AMODE_VALUE |
> + MC34708_SW345OP_SW4BMODE_VALUE |
> + MC34708_SW345OP_SW5MODE_VALUE);
> + if (ret)
> + goto err_free;

If this needs to be done unconditionally shouldn't it be being donei in
the MFD core driver?
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-04-20 13:45    [W:0.114 / U:0.064 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site