Messages in this thread | | | From | Jeffrey Hugo <> | Date | Mon, 17 Jun 2019 09:17:21 -0600 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 4/7] regulator: qcom_spmi: Add support for PM8005 |
| |
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 9:05 AM Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 02:25:53PM -0700, Jeffrey Hugo wrote: > > > +static int spmi_regulator_ftsmps426_set_voltage(struct regulator_dev *rdev, > > + unsigned selector) > > +{ > > + struct spmi_regulator *vreg = rdev_get_drvdata(rdev); > > + u8 buf[2]; > > + int mV; > > + > > + mV = spmi_regulator_common_list_voltage(rdev, selector) / 1000; > > + > > + buf[0] = mV & 0xff; > > + buf[1] = mV >> 8; > > + return spmi_vreg_write(vreg, SPMI_FTSMPS426_REG_VOLTAGE_LSB, buf, 2); > > +} > > This could just be a set_voltage_sel(), no need for it to be a > set_voltage() operation....
This is a set_voltage_sel() in spmi_ftsmps426_ops. Is the issue because this function is "spmi_regulator_ftsmps426_set_voltage" and not "spmi_regulator_ftsmps426_set_voltage_sel"?
> > > +static int spmi_regulator_ftsmps426_get_voltage(struct regulator_dev *rdev) > > +{ > > + struct spmi_regulator *vreg = rdev_get_drvdata(rdev); > > + u8 buf[2]; > > + > > + spmi_vreg_read(vreg, SPMI_FTSMPS426_REG_VOLTAGE_LSB, buf, 2); > > + > > + return (((unsigned int)buf[1] << 8) | (unsigned int)buf[0]) * 1000; > > +} > > ...or if the conversion is this trivial why do the list_voltage() lookup > above?
We already have code in the driver to convert a selector to the voltage. Why duplicate that inline in spmi_regulator_ftsmps426_set_voltage?
> > > +spmi_regulator_ftsmps426_set_mode(struct regulator_dev *rdev, unsigned int mode) > > +{ > > + struct spmi_regulator *vreg = rdev_get_drvdata(rdev); > > + u8 mask = SPMI_FTSMPS426_MODE_MASK; > > + u8 val; > > + > > + switch (mode) { > > + case REGULATOR_MODE_NORMAL: > > + val = SPMI_FTSMPS426_MODE_HPM_MASK; > > + break; > > + case REGULATOR_MODE_FAST: > > + val = SPMI_FTSMPS426_MODE_AUTO_MASK; > > + break; > > + default: > > + val = SPMI_FTSMPS426_MODE_LPM_MASK; > > + break; > > + } > > This should validate, it shouldn't just translate invalid values into > valid ones.
Validate what? The other defines are REGULATOR_MODE_IDLE and REGULATOR_MODE_STANDBY which correspond to the LPM mode. Or are you suggesting that regulator framework is going to pass REGULATOR_MODE_INVALID to this operation?
| |