Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/3] regulator: qcom_spmi: Add support for PM8005 | From | Jeffrey Hugo <> | Date | Tue, 21 May 2019 17:16:06 -0600 |
| |
On 5/21/2019 12:50 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 09:53:15AM -0700, Jeffrey Hugo wrote: > >> - spmi_vreg_read(vreg, SPMI_COMMON_REG_VOLTAGE_RANGE, &range_sel, 1); >> + /* second common devices don't have VOLTAGE_RANGE register */ >> + if (vreg->logical_type == SPMI_REGULATOR_LOGICAL_TYPE_FTSMPS2) { >> + spmi_vreg_read(vreg, SPMI_COMMON2_REG_VOLTAGE_LSB, &lsb, 1); >> + spmi_vreg_read(vreg, SPMI_COMMON2_REG_VOLTAGE_MSB, &msb, 1); >> + >> + uV = (((int)msb << 8) | (int)lsb) * 1000; > > This overlaps with some changes that Jorge (CCed) was sending for the > PMS405. As I was saying to him rather than shoving special cases for > different regulator types into the ops (especially ones that don't have > any of the range stuff) it'd be better to just define separate ops for > the regulators that look quite different to the existing ones.
Sorry, I hadn't paid attention to that discussion. Reviewing it now. > >> +static int spmi_regulator_common_list_voltage(struct regulator_dev *rdev, >> + unsigned selector); >> + >> +static int spmi_regulator_common2_set_voltage(struct regulator_dev *rdev, >> + unsigned selector) > > Eeew, can we not have better names?
I'm open to suggestions. Apparently there are two register common register schemes - the old one and the new one. PMIC designs after some random point in time are all the new register scheme per the documentation I see.
As far as I an aware, the FT426 design is the first design to be added to this driver to make use of the new scheme, but I expect more to be supported in future, thus I'm reluctant to make these ft426 specific in the name.
> >> +static unsigned int spmi_regulator_common2_get_mode(struct regulator_dev *rdev) >> +{ >> + struct spmi_regulator *vreg = rdev_get_drvdata(rdev); >> + u8 reg; >> + >> + spmi_vreg_read(vreg, SPMI_COMMON2_REG_MODE, ®, 1); >> + >> + if (reg == SPMI_COMMON2_MODE_HPM_MASK) >> + return REGULATOR_MODE_NORMAL; >> + >> + if (reg == SPMI_COMMON2_MODE_AUTO_MASK) >> + return REGULATOR_MODE_FAST; >> + >> + return REGULATOR_MODE_IDLE; >> +} > > This looks like you want to write a switch statement.
It follows the existing style in the driver, but sure I can make this a switch.
> >> +spmi_regulator_common2_set_mode(struct regulator_dev *rdev, unsigned int mode) >> +{ >> + struct spmi_regulator *vreg = rdev_get_drvdata(rdev); >> + u8 mask = SPMI_COMMON2_MODE_MASK; >> + u8 val = SPMI_COMMON2_MODE_LPM_MASK; >> + >> + if (mode == REGULATOR_MODE_NORMAL) >> + val = SPMI_COMMON2_MODE_HPM_MASK; >> + else if (mode == REGULATOR_MODE_FAST) >> + val = SPMI_COMMON2_MODE_AUTO_MASK; > > This needs to be a switch statement, then it can have a default case to > catch errors too. >
-- Jeffrey Hugo Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
| |