[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1341293168.3241.7.camel@phoenix>
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 13:26:08 +0800
From: Axel Lin <axel.lin@...il.com>
To: "AnilKumar, Chimata" <anilkumar@...com>
Cc: "Girdwood, Liam" <lrg@...com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Nori, Sekhar" <nsekhar@...com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2] regulator: tps65217: Fix voltage boundary checking
in tps65217_pmic_map_voltage
> Case 1:-
> ------
>
> tps->info[rid]->min_uV = 600000;
> tps->info[rid]->max_uV = 1100000;
>
> If we do regulator_set_voltage(reg, 550000, 1100000);
>
> This results into error condition and how can we handle with this?
In original code, it returns error. ( I think which is wrong.)
What we want is to set the smallest voltage within the specified voltage
range.
With this patch, calling regulator_set_voltage(reg, 550000, 1100000);
is the same as calling regulator_set_voltage(reg, 600000, 1100000);
It will set the voltage to 600000 uV.
>
> Case 2:-
> ------
>
> I think the current code handles this case as well.
>
> There might be a case where board/DT data is false like
>
> tps->info[rid]->min_uV = 1100000;
> tps->info[rid]->max_uV = 600000;
>
I don't get it.
You mean the case min_uV is greater than max_uV?
My understanding of current implementation is that the
tps->info[rid]->min_uV and tps->info[rid]->max_uV are not controlled by
board/DT data. They are defined in tps65217_pmic_regs[].
> regulator_set_voltage(reg, 650000, 1100000);
>
> Regards
> AnilKumar
--
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