lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Mar]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] regulator: core: Ensure we are at least in bounds for our constraints
From
On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 2:08 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 04:50:41PM -0700, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
>
>> Reinstating the following snippet in of_get_regulation_constraints()
>> sort this out:
>
>> if (constraints->min_uV && constraints->max_uV)
>> constraints->apply_uV = true;
>
> The existing check in the patch should be an || not an ==, or possibly
> we should just not bother looking for min_uV at all. I just pushed out
> a version of that, let's see how that goes.
>

Either way is fine with me, as long as we either go ahead and apply a
voltage setting now or allow a consumer to do so later (your posted
patch does both).

>> I did look at an alternative of having regulator_set_voltage() pass
>> and call set_voltage() if the requested voltage matches the
>> constraints, but this does indeed seem to mess things up. So checking
>> in with you before continuing on that hack.
>
> Yes, not everything is writeable.

Right, looking at your posted patch [1] we're changing this logic so
that normal regulators defined with min == max will be allowed to
set_voltage(). Thinking about it that makes sense and cleans the logic
up, so I'm in favor of this.

I know it's published, but fwiw you have my Acked-by on the posted patch.


[1] https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/broonie/regulator.git/commit/?h=for-next&id=fa93fd4ecc9c58475abac6db93a797bff893bc16

Regards,
Bjorn

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-03-28 19:01    [W:0.117 / U:0.300 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site