Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 20 Oct 2015 14:26:55 +0200 | From | Sascha Hauer <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 5/8] regulator: introduce regulator_get_voltage_floor |
| |
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 05:50:23PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 12:45:28PM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote: > > > + num_voltages = regulator_count_voltages(regulator); > > + if (num_voltages < 0) > > + return num_voltages; > > > + for (i = 0; i < num_voltages; i++) { > > + now = _regulator_list_voltage(regulator, i, 0); > > + if (now < 0) > > + continue; > > + if (now < best && now >= min_uV) > > + best = now; > > + } > > Why is this not a factoring out of existing code (indeed it is itself a > reimplementation of regulator_map_voltage_iterate())? This will also be > a substantial performance loss in cases where we have a known mapping > function - we should use a map_voltage() operation if one exists like we > do in _do_set_voltage(). That has logic to handle missing mapping > functions as a transition measure, now I look at it we should probably > remove that code and just require that the mapping function is set if > appropriate.
I didn't realize the map_voltage functionality is exactly what I want to have. Turns out that I can factor out a regulator_map_voltage() function instead of creating a regulator_get_voltage_floor() function. Updated series follows shortly.
Sascha
-- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
| |