Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 23 May 2022 14:49:19 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/4] regulator: Add driver for MT6331 PMIC regulators | From | AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <> |
| |
Il 20/05/22 16:45, Mark Brown ha scritto: > On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 03:33:03PM +0200, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote: > >> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 >> +/* >> + * Copyright (c) 2022 Collabora Ltd. >> + * Author: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com> >> + * > > Please make the entire comment a C++ one so things look more > intentional. >
Will do.
>> +static const unsigned int ldo_volt_table10[] = { >> + 1200000, 1300000, 1500000, 1800000, >> + 1200000, 1300000, 1500000, 1800000, >> + 1200000, 1300000, 1500000, 1800000, >> + 1200000, 1300000, 1500000, 1800000, >> +}; > > So the top bits of the voltate selection field just get ignored? Might > be easier to just write the code to not include the top bits. >
No, they're all valid values for real... but I guess that I can simplify this voltage table by simply modifying the bitmask that we use for the regulators that are using this table....
Example:
MT6331_LDO_S("ldo-vcamio", VCAM_IO, ldo_volt_table10, MT6331_SYSLDO_CON3, 10,
MT6331_SYSLDO_CON11, GENMASK(6, 3), MT6331_SYSLDO_CON3, GENMASK(1, 0),
MT6331_EN_STATUS1, BIT(13)),
So for VCAM_IO it's CON11... we have VGP2, VGP3 using CON14, CON15, then there are no more users for this table. If I use GENMASK(4, 3), I can effectively leave only four voltage values in ldo_volt_table10.
Also, I've just noticed a mistake on ldo-vmipi: that's supposed to have a mask of GENMASK(5, 3), not (6, 3) - which is in turn also making me able to remove the ldo_volt_table_3a.
Alright, will fix in the next one :))
>> +static int mt6331_get_status(struct regulator_dev *rdev) >> +{ >> + struct mt6331_regulator_info *info = rdev_get_drvdata(rdev); >> + u32 reg, en_mask, regval; >> + int ret; >> + >> + if (info->qi > 0) { >> + reg = info->desc.enable_reg; >> + en_mask = info->qi; > > If the regulator doesn't have status readback it shouldn't provide a > get_status() operation. >
What I've understood is that when there's no "QI" flag, the enable register will provide the regulator status (EN/DIS) acting like QI, that's why I've added that if branch...
Anyway, I'll recheck this part before sending the next version!
>> +static int mt6331_ldo_set_mode(struct regulator_dev *rdev, unsigned int mode) >> +{ >> + int ret, val = 0; >> + struct mt6331_regulator_info *info = rdev_get_drvdata(rdev); >> + >> + if (!info->modeset_mask) { >> + dev_err(&rdev->dev, "regulator %s doesn't support set_mode\n", >> + info->desc.name); >> + return -EINVAL; >> + } > > Just don't provide the operation for these regulators then. That'll > mean a separate ops struct but that's fine.
Oki, I'll add new ops then.
Thanks for the review! P.S.: I'll obviously apply the same suggestions on mt6332-regulator as well.
Cheers, Angelo
| |