Messages in this thread | | | From | "Zhang, Sonic" <> | Date | Tue, 3 Jul 2012 23:44:34 -0400 | Subject | RE: [PATCH v2] regulator: ad5398: Fix min/max current limit boundary checking |
| |
>-----Original Message----- >From: Axel Lin [mailto:axel.lin@gmail.com] >Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2012 11:19 AM >To: Zhang, Sonic >Cc: Lars-Peter Clausen; Mark Brown; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Liam >Girdwood >Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] regulator: ad5398: Fix min/max current limit boundary >checking > > >> >That is why we need to add: >> >if (min_uA < chip->min_uA) >> > min_uA = chip->min_uA; >> > >> >> Yes, but if you apply this logic to min_uA, you should apply the same logic to >max_uA, even though it is not used in your application. > >Actually, the logic is the same: >to find a supported (minmal) current in specified range. > >The question is the equation used in current code does not allow >min_uA < chip->min_uA. >Setting min_uA = chip->min_uA if min_uA < chip->min_uA does make sense >because botch request actually returns the same current value. >( I mean no user visible change ) > >Adding below logic is not necessary. >( Note: Adding this or not does not have any user visible change, it's >just not necessary) > >if (max_uA > chip->min_uA) > max_uA = chip->max_uA; > >It is not necessary because the equation to choose selector does not >depends on max_uA. No matter if we set max_uA = chip->max_uA or not in >this case, it does not impact the equation to choose the selector. > >But, well, if you really prefer adding it. I'll send a v3 for it. >Just let me know how do you think.
Yes, v3 please.
Sonic
> >Regards, >Axel > >
| |