[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160327090859.GH5028@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2016 10:08:59 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn@...o.se>
Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>,
Ivaylo Dimitrov <ivo.g.dimitrov.75@...il.com>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
linux-mmc <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-samsung-soc <linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@....samsung.com>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] regulator: core: Ensure we are at least in bounds
for our constraints
On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 04:50:41PM -0700, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> Reinstating the following snippet in of_get_regulation_constraints()
> sort this out:
> if (constraints->min_uV && constraints->max_uV)
> constraints->apply_uV = true;
The existing check in the patch should be an || not an ==, or possibly
we should just not bother looking for min_uV at all. I just pushed out
a version of that, let's see how that goes.
> I did look at an alternative of having regulator_set_voltage() pass
> and call set_voltage() if the requested voltage matches the
> constraints, but this does indeed seem to mess things up. So checking
> in with you before continuing on that hack.
Yes, not everything is writeable.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists