[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140616164858.GI5099@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 17:48:58 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc: Richard Fitzgerald <rf@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
sameo@...ux.intel.com, ckeepax@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com,
lgirdwood@...il.com, perex@...ex.cz, tiwai@...e.de,
alsa-devel@...a-project.org, patches@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] mfd: arizona: Export function to control subsystem
DVFS
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 05:42:42PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jun 2014, Richard Fitzgerald wrote:
> > + if (arizona->subsys_max_rq != new_flags) {
> I don't really get this. What's the point in passing the mask
> parameter - I don't see it being used for anything in this routine? No
> matter what is passed in you always just turn on the same regulator.
> What am I missing?
AFAICT it's a bunch of different independently selectable requests for
the voltage to ramped with any one of them causing it to happen.
I did wonder why this wasn't just done by refcounting, that's the more
normal pattern in the kernel, though I guess it's possible some of them
need different ramps on different devices.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists