linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] regulator: s2mps11: Implement set_voltage_time

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]

Date:	Wed, 3 Jul 2013 18:01:17 +0530
From:	Yadwinder Singh Brar <yadi.brar01@...il.com>
To:	Sachin Kamat <sachin.kamat@...aro.org>
Cc:	Yadwinder Singh Brar <yadi.brar@...sung.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sbkim73@...sung.com,
	broonie@...nel.org, Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
	Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>, rob.herring@...xeda.com,
	grant.likely@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] regulator: s2mps11: Implement set_voltage_time_sel()
 ops for bucks

On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Sachin Kamat <sachin.kamat@...aro.org> wrote:
> On 24 June 2013 16:50, Yadwinder Singh Brar <yadi.brar@...sung.com> wrote:
>> Currently driver uses local struct s2mps11_info to store ramp rate for bucks
>> whic its getting through platform data, so instead of using regulator
>> constraints it should use s2mps11_info to calculate ramp delay.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yadwinder Singh Brar <yadi.brar@...sung.com>
> [snip]
>> +
>> +       switch (rdev->desc->id) {
>> +       case S2MPS11_BUCK2:
>> +               if (!s2mps11->buck2_ramp)
>> +                       return 0;
>> +               ramp_delay = s2mps11->ramp_delay2;
>> +               break;
>> +       case S2MPS11_BUCK3:
>> +               if (!s2mps11->buck3_ramp)
>> +                       return 0;
>> +               ramp_delay = s2mps11->ramp_delay34;
>> +               break;
>> +       case S2MPS11_BUCK4:
>> +               if (!s2mps11->buck4_ramp)
>> +                       return 0;
>> +               ramp_delay = s2mps11->ramp_delay34;
>> +               break;
>> +       case S2MPS11_BUCK5:
>> +               ramp_delay = s2mps11->ramp_delay5;
>> +               break;
>> +       case S2MPS11_BUCK6:
>> +               if (!s2mps11->buck6_ramp)
>> +                       return 0;
>> +       case S2MPS11_BUCK1:
>
> nit: Why not have this at the beginning?
>

Nothing special. Instead of putting "case S2MPS11_BUCK6" at beginning,
I preferred to put S2MPS11_BUCK1 here.

>> +               ramp_delay = s2mps11->ramp_delay16;
>> +               break;
>> +       case S2MPS11_BUCK7:
>> +       case S2MPS11_BUCK8:
>> +       case S2MPS11_BUCK10:
>> +               ramp_delay = s2mps11->ramp_delay7810;
>> +               break;
>> +       case S2MPS11_BUCK9:
>> +               ramp_delay = s2mps11->ramp_delay9;
>> +       }
>
> How about adding a break statement above?
>

hmm .. I can't see any worth of it.
Is it required according to linux coding convention ?


Regards,
Yadwinder

--
> With warm regards,
> Sachin
--
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/