Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Da903x regulator driver. Bug? | From | Liam Girdwood <> | Date | Fri, 24 Oct 2008 19:24:25 +0100 |
| |
On Fri, 2008-10-24 at 18:23 +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > Firstly, is lkml the right place to ask questions about regulator drivers?
Yes.
> > > > Secondly, though I can't track down any examples, I'm guessing the following > > is a valid board config for the da903x reg etc. > >
I'm not sure if this is a valid config for this board. Eric will probably know for sure.
> > static struct regulator_init_data stargate2_ld8_init_data = { > > .supply_regulator_dev = NULL, > > .constraints = { > > .name = "vdd_mica", > > .min_uV = 1800000, > > .max_uV = 1900000, > > .valid_modes_mask = REGULATOR_CHANGE_VOLTAGE, > > }, > > }; > > > > /* playing with this ld0 as it only goes to an external connector */ > > static struct da903x_subdev_info stargate2_da9030_subdevs[] = { > > { > > .name = "da903x-regulator", > > .id = DA9030_ID_LDO8, > > .platform_data = &stargate2_ld8_init_data, > > }, > > }; > > > > static struct da903x_platform_data stargate2_da9030_pdata = { > > .num_subdevs = ARRAY_SIZE(stargate2_da9030_subdevs), > > .subdevs = stargate2_da9030_subdevs, > > }; > > static struct i2c_board_info __initdata stargate2_pwr_i2c_board_info [] = { > > { > > .type = "da9030", > > .addr = 0x49, > > .platform_data = &stargate2_da9030_pdata, > > .irq = gpio_to_irq(1), > > }, > > }; > > > > // and relevant registration code. > > > > > > Now if this is now things are expected to be, there is a bug in > > regulators/da903x.c in da903x_regulator_probe > > > > rdev = regulator_register(&ri->desc, pdev->dev.parent, ri); > > > > should be > > > > rdev = regulator_register(&ri->desc, &pdev->dev, ri);
wm8350 and wm8400 (other mfd regulators) both register using the bottom case.
> > > > > Unfortunately this fix causes other issues as now the i2c_client > is 2 layers down rather than one requiring quite a few changes > to > struct device *da9034_dev = rdev_get_dev(rdev)->parent->parent; > from > struct device *da9034_dev = rdev_get_dev(rdev)->parent; > > So either a change to the regulator framework is needed to > allow mfd's or these extra ->parent lines need to go in in lots > of places. > > Which do people prefer? >
Could you fix in a similar method to the wm8350/wm8400.
I would also move the da903x_regulator_info lookup into each regulator function, rather than at probe(). This would free up the registration private data. da903x_regulator_info is an array so we should be able to use regulator->id as the index.
Liam
| |