| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 20:19:21 +0530
From: "T Krishnamoorthy, Balaji" <balajitk@...com>
To: Graeme Gregory <gg@...mlogic.co.uk>
Cc: linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
sameo@...ux.intel.com, balbi@...com, lrg@...mlogic.co.uk,
broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com, linux@...mlogic.co.uk,
lrg@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] REGULATOR: TWL6025: add support to twl-regulator
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 12:02 AM, Graeme Gregory <gg@...mlogic.co.uk> wrote:
> Adding support for the twl6025. Major difference in the twl6025 is the
> group functionality has been removed from the chip so this affects how
> regulators are enabled and disabled.
>
> The names of the regulators also changed.
>
> The DCDCs of the 6025 are software controllable as well.
>
> Since V1
>
> Use the features variable passed via platform data instead of calling
> global function.
>
> Change the very switch like if statements to be a more readable
> switch statement.
>
> Since V2
>
> twl6025 doesn't use remap so remove it from the macros.
>
> Signed-off-by: Graeme Gregory <gg@...mlogic.co.uk>
> ---
> drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c | 410 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> 1 files changed, 375 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)
>
<snip>
> +
> +static int twl6030dcdc_list_voltage(struct regulator_dev *rdev, unsigned index)
> +{
> + struct twlreg_info *info = rdev_get_drvdata(rdev);
> +
> + int voltage = 0;
> +
> + switch (info->flags) {
> + case 0:
> + switch (index) {
> + case 0:
> + voltage = 0;
> + break;
> + case 58:
Not sure if hex 0x3A is better here, TRM gives in binary though.
> + voltage = 1350 * 1000;
> + break;
> + case 59:
> + voltage = 1500 * 1000;
> + break;
> + case 60:
> + voltage = 1800 * 1000;
> + break;
> + case 61:
> + voltage = 1900 * 1000;
> + break;
> + case 62:
> + voltage = 2100 * 1000;
> + break;
> + default:
> + voltage = (600000 + (12500 * (index - 1)));
> + }
> + break;
> + case DCDC_OFFSET_EN:
> + switch (index) {
> + case 0:
> + voltage = 0;
> + break;
> + case 58:
> + voltage = 1350 * 1000;
> + break;
> + case 59:
> + voltage = 1500 * 1000;
> + break;
> + case 60:
> + voltage = 1800 * 1000;
> + break;
> + case 61:
> + voltage = 1900 * 1000;
> + break;
> + case 62:
> + voltage = 2100 * 1000;
> + break;
> + default:
> + voltage = (700000 + (12500 * (index - 1)));
Between DCDC_OFFSET_EN and case 0
700000 and 600000 is the only difference,
can it be handled via additional 100000 in case DCDC_OFFSET_EN?
like
+ case DCDC_OFFSET_EN:
voltage = 100000;
/* fall through */
+ case 0:
voltage += (600000 + (12500 * (index - 1)));
> + }
> + break;
> + case DCDC_EXTENDED_EN:
> + switch (index) {
> + case 0:
> + voltage = 0;
> + break;
> + case 58:
> + voltage = 2084 * 1000;
> + break;
> + case 59:
> + voltage = 2315 * 1000;
> + break;
> + case 60:
> + voltage = 2778 * 1000;
> + break;
> + case 61:
> + voltage = 2932 * 1000;
> + break;
> + case 62:
> + voltage = 3241 * 1000;
> + break;
> + default:
> + voltage = (1852000 + (38600 * (index - 1)));
> + }
> + break;
> + case DCDC_OFFSET_EN|DCDC_EXTENDED_EN:
space between |
> + switch (index) {
> +
> +static int
> +twl6030dcdc_set_voltage(struct regulator_dev *rdev, int min_uV, int max_uV,
> + unsigned int *selector)
> +{
> + struct twlreg_info *info = rdev_get_drvdata(rdev);
> + int vsel = 0;
> +
> + switch (info->flags) {
> + case 0:
> + if (min_uV == 0)
> + vsel = 0;
> + else if ((min_uV >= 600000) && (max_uV <= 1300000)) {
> + vsel = (min_uV - 600000) / 125;
> + if (vsel % 100)
> + vsel += 100;
> + vsel /= 100;
> + vsel++;
> + }
> + /* Values 1..57 for vsel are linear and can be calculated
> + * values 58..62 are non linear.
> + */
> + else if ((min_uV > 1900000) && (max_uV >= 2100000))
> + vsel = 62;
> + else if ((min_uV > 1800000) && (max_uV >= 1900000))
> + vsel = 61;
> + else if ((min_uV > 1500000) && (max_uV >= 1800000))
> + vsel = 60;
> + else if ((min_uV > 1350000) && (max_uV >= 1500000))
> + vsel = 59;
> + else if ((min_uV > 1300000) && (max_uV >= 1350000))
> + vsel = 58;
> + else
> + return -EINVAL;
> + break;
> + case DCDC_OFFSET_EN:
> + if (min_uV == 0)
> + vsel = 0;
> + else if ((min_uV >= 700000) && (max_uV <= 1420000)) {
> + vsel = (min_uV - 600000) / 125;
s/600000/700000 ?
> + if (vsel % 100)
> + vsel += 100;
> + vsel /= 100;
> + vsel++;
> + }
> +static struct regulator_ops twldcdc_ops = {
> + .list_voltage = twl6030dcdc_list_voltage,
> +
> + .set_voltage = twl6030dcdc_set_voltage,
> + .get_voltage_sel = twl6030dcdc_get_voltage_sel,
In 6030 TRM, dcdc is mentioned as SMPS
Is it different it in 6025 TRM?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists