linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] regulator: Add support for MAX77686.

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAKew6eWRFQMsPFhrA2g54VTTkV4ibMDTeFiz6nHDmZjOmVk__g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 10 May 2012 16:26:48 +0530
From:	Yadwinder Singh Brar <yadi.brar01@...il.com>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc:	Yadwinder Singh <yadi.brar@...sung.com>,
	linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] regulator: Add support for MAX77686.

Hi Mark,

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Mark Brown
<broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:54:24PM +0530, Yadwinder Singh Brar wrote:
>> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:17 AM, Mark Brown
>> > On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 09:54:55PM +0530, Yadwinder Singh wrote:
>
>> >> +     [MAX77686_EN32KHZ_AP] = NULL,
>> >> +     [MAX77686_EN32KHZ_CP] = NULL,
>
>> > Now that the generic clock API is in mainline these should be moved over
>> > to use it.
>
>> Sorry, I cann't get your point here. Please explain it little bit more.
>
> These are not regulators, these are clocks.  They should use the clock
> API.
>

Ok. I got it.

>> >> +     if (pdata->ramp_delay) {
>> >> +             max77686->ramp_delay = pdata->ramp_delay;
>> >> +             max77686_update_reg(i2c, MAX77686_REG_BUCK2CTRL1,
>> >> +                     RAMP_VALUE, RAMP_MASK);
>
>> > This appears not to actually use the value passed in as platform_data.
>
>> It gets corresponding index of ramp_rate value in ramp_rate_value
>> table supported by hardware, from platform_data which we write to
>> ramp_rate control bits of control registers.
>
> Why is the driver unconditionally writing these register values here
> rather than setting the ramp delay that was passed in?

Here we are setting the max77686->ramp_delay and writing the same
value(max77686->ramp_delay << 6) at register also.


Thanks,
Yadwinder.
--
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/