Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 27 Jul 2009 12:16:39 +0800 | From | Eric Miao <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] regulator: da903x: add support for DA9030 BUCK2 with DVM |
| |
Mike Rapoport wrote: > > Liam Girdwood wrote: >> On Sun, 2009-07-26 at 10:54 +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote: >>> Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport <mike@compulab.co.il> >>> --- >>> drivers/regulator/da903x.c | 17 ++++++++++++----- >>> 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/regulator/da903x.c b/drivers/regulator/da903x.c >>> index b8b89ef..fab755d 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/regulator/da903x.c >>> +++ b/drivers/regulator/da903x.c >>> @@ -367,24 +367,24 @@ static struct regulator_ops da9034_regulator_ldo12_ops = { >>> .enable_bit = (ebit), \ >>> } >>> >> Looks fine but did not apply :- >> >> Applying: regulator: da903x: add support for DA9030 BUCK2 with DVM >> error: patch failed: drivers/regulator/da903x.c:367 >> error: drivers/regulator/da903x.c: patch does not apply >> Patch failed at 0001 regulator: da903x: add support for DA9030 BUCK2 with DVM >> >> Could you regenerate against the regulator tree for-next branch. >> >> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lrg/voltage-2.6.git > > It seems I'm getting senile. The BUCK2 is already supported, moreover I've acked > the patch. > The only thing left to do is to consolidate DA903[045]_DVC macros: >
Mmm.... this looks a bit zigzag, and making the definition of DA90x_DVC() too long (> 80 chars?), that's why it was originally written so.
DA9035 is actually very similar to DA9034 that doesn't even deserve a separate name for (it does have a significant change in the analog frontend - but that's out of AP control), so I basically don't bother invent a DA9035_DVC().
I have to admit that defining both DA9030_DVC() and DA9034_DVC() is a bit redundant, but keeps the code in a little bit better shape.
| |