linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] mfd: s2mps11: Add device tree support

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: <CAKew6eVWt==t3NZTwvULTBmWSHkAf6jNuPcj8p711st_7ZmRAw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 4 Jul 2013 17:13:46 +0530
From:	Yadwinder Singh Brar <yadi.brar01@...il.com>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:	Yadwinder Singh Brar <yadi.brar@...sung.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sbkim73@...sung.com,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
	Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
	Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] mfd: s2mps11: Add device tree support

On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 10:37:30AM +0530, Yadwinder Singh Brar wrote:
>
>> -  Currently ramp-delay (= 0) if not defined in DT, leaves the
>> hardware with default
>
> That's just an issue in the code if that is the case, you can test for
> the presence of a property independently of getting its value.
>

Yes, for that we will need an extra flag (ramp_disable) in
constraints, to figure out whether
ramp-rate is actually set to zero or its left (by default) zero if we
do it in common code as
now we have locally in driver.

>> - As ramp time is inversely propositional to ramp-rate(i.e. ramp-delay ,
>> its wrongly named, my mistake :( ) so it may look weired to use ramp-rate =0
>> as no ramp(ramp_time = 0).
>
> I think it's fairly obvious what's going on there, it fits in with the
> general pattern that a lower number is faster too.
>

yes, lower number(ramp_time) is faster, but I meant to say that lower
ramp-rate means higher ramp_time.

I think its matter of assumption, so to conclude our discussion,
please let me know that which approach we should use:
- assume "regulator-ramp-delay = <0>" as ramp_disable.
or
- parsing "regulator_ramp_disable" from DT.



Regards,
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/