Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 3 Jul 2013 18:01:17 +0530 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/4] regulator: s2mps11: Implement set_voltage_time_sel() ops for bucks | From | Yadwinder Singh Brar <> |
| |
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Sachin Kamat <sachin.kamat@linaro.org> wrote: > On 24 June 2013 16:50, Yadwinder Singh Brar <yadi.brar@samsung.com> wrote: >> Currently driver uses local struct s2mps11_info to store ramp rate for bucks >> whic its getting through platform data, so instead of using regulator >> constraints it should use s2mps11_info to calculate ramp delay. >> >> Signed-off-by: Yadwinder Singh Brar <yadi.brar@samsung.com> > [snip] >> + >> + switch (rdev->desc->id) { >> + case S2MPS11_BUCK2: >> + if (!s2mps11->buck2_ramp) >> + return 0; >> + ramp_delay = s2mps11->ramp_delay2; >> + break; >> + case S2MPS11_BUCK3: >> + if (!s2mps11->buck3_ramp) >> + return 0; >> + ramp_delay = s2mps11->ramp_delay34; >> + break; >> + case S2MPS11_BUCK4: >> + if (!s2mps11->buck4_ramp) >> + return 0; >> + ramp_delay = s2mps11->ramp_delay34; >> + break; >> + case S2MPS11_BUCK5: >> + ramp_delay = s2mps11->ramp_delay5; >> + break; >> + case S2MPS11_BUCK6: >> + if (!s2mps11->buck6_ramp) >> + return 0; >> + case S2MPS11_BUCK1: > > nit: Why not have this at the beginning? >
Nothing special. Instead of putting "case S2MPS11_BUCK6" at beginning, I preferred to put S2MPS11_BUCK1 here.
>> + ramp_delay = s2mps11->ramp_delay16; >> + break; >> + case S2MPS11_BUCK7: >> + case S2MPS11_BUCK8: >> + case S2MPS11_BUCK10: >> + ramp_delay = s2mps11->ramp_delay7810; >> + break; >> + case S2MPS11_BUCK9: >> + ramp_delay = s2mps11->ramp_delay9; >> + } > > How about adding a break statement above? >
hmm .. I can't see any worth of it. Is it required according to linux coding convention ?
Regards, Yadwinder
-- > With warm regards, > Sachin
| |