Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 30 May 2012 17:38:59 +0530 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4] regulator: MAX77686: Add Maxim 77686 regulator driver | From | Yadwinder Singh Brar <> |
| |
Hi Jonghwa,
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 4:07 PM, <jonghwa3.lee@samsung.com> wrote: > Hi Yadwinder, > > I'm sorry for late reply. I understand the problem you pointed out, but > i don't agree with you all.
Sorry,I think you didn't get my points. Lets forget my code and talk about this code now.
>>>>> + >>>>> + for (i = 0; i < MAX77686_REGULATORS; i++) { >>>>> + if (pdata) >>>>> + init_data[pdata->regulators[i].id] = >>>>> + pdata->regulators[i].initdata;
In case we have a list of 5 regulators only in pdata, than what will happen here when i > 5 ???
>>>> >>>> I think we can directly use pdata->regulators[i].initdata instead of >>>> init_data[i]. >>>> In case if pdata is not their we can use same instance of >>>> init_data(default) for all regulators. >>>> >>> >>> >>> This if for some situation that pdata's initdata doensn't line up. When
>>>>> + config.init_data = init_data[i]; >>>>> + rdev[i] = regulator_register(®ulators[i], &config);
In case pdata->regulators[0] is not the first regulator(i.e id > 0), then will it get proper initdata for regulators[0] before registering ????
>> >> Ok, but I think this not right place for sorting (sorting is not taking >> place.) You have to sort it before entering in loop for registering >> regulators. >> >>> user sets only initdata considered it being used, there may be >>> regulators not having initdata, also its order is not clear. So for >> >> Ok, I think this is a bug in present driver also, because >> without checking pdata->num_regulators, you are running in >> loop for (i = 0; i < MAX77686_REGULATORS; i++) >> where MAX77686_REGULATORS should be equal to >> pdata->num_regulators for this driver to work fine. >> > > > I think we have same variable num_regulators but use differently. In my > code, it represents number of regulators to be used actually, but in > your code it equals to total number of regulators. Since it has
not exactly.
> different meaning, it doesn't have to same with MAX77686_REGULATORS. > MAX77686_REGULATORS is macro which indicates total number of regulators > in max77686, and it equals to ARRAY_SIZE(regulators). Even if they are > not same, it's not a bug because we want to register all regulators > whether it will be used or not. > > >> If we consider a case pdata->num_regulators is >> equal to MAX77686_REGULATORS and initdata is >> not their(i.e. NULL) than I think it will initialise >> init_data[pdata->regulators[i].id to NULL, which again will be a bug. >> >>> those state, i think just using temporary array which satisfies >>> regulator's id order is fine while it can't use pdata's initdata directly. >>> >> >> If I am not wrong, I think we can also sort pdata's initdata also using >> kernel's sort api and use one instance of (default)initdata for >> all unused or uninitialized regulators in platform file. >> > > > If init_data references to NULL, it will be ignored while > register_regulators() does initialize. Thus it doesn't make any problem. > > I'm afraid of using Kernel's sort API because of its overhead. Do you
I don't think it's overhead will matter more than that of allocating a new array and than sorting it here.
> think it will be better to use them? If you mind that init_data has been > dynamic allocated, it can be modified to a static pointer array. >
No, their is no problem with dynamic. Anyways, I had just suggested you to use pdata->regulators[i].initdata.
Regards, Yadwinder. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |