[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090914104101.GB3164@pengutronix.de>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:41:01 +0200
From: Wolfram Sang <w.sang@...gutronix.de>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Liam Girdwood <lrg@...mlogic.co.uk>,
broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com
Subject: regulator: adding constraints to regulator_desc?
Hi,
I have a question regarding the constraints of the regulator-framework: If I
understood correctly, there is a struct in regulator_dev which is describing
the constraints on the power-domain-level. As we also have constraints on the
regulator-level, all the regulator drivers do sanity checks in their
set_voltage()-functions. These checks differ and it is not always clear to me
if additional checks other drivers have were forgotten or intentionally omitted
for a specific driver. I also wondered about code-duplication and if it was
maybe worthwhile to simply add 'min' and 'max' members to struct regulator_desc
and let the core do sanity checks (like it does for the constraints on the
power-domain-level). Has this been considered already?
One thing which also raised my attention was the beginning of
regulator_check_voltage(). It starts with
BUG_ON(*min_uV > *max_uV);
Is it really necessary to halt the kernel? Wouldn't a big warning and -EINVAL
do like at the end of the function?
Regards,
Wolfram
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (198 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists