[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160410190441.GC18319@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 20:04:41 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Wadim Egorov <w.egorov@...tec.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, robh+dt@...nel.org, pawel.moll@....com,
mark.rutland@....com, ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk,
galak@...eaurora.org, lee.jones@...aro.org, lgirdwood@...il.com,
dianders@...omium.org, zyw@...k-chips.com
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/3] regulator: rk808: Add support for rk818
On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 11:47:40AM +0200, Wadim Egorov wrote:
> +static const struct regulator_linear_range rk818_buck4_voltage_ranges[] = {
> + REGULATOR_LINEAR_RANGE(1800000, 0, 18, 100000),
> +};
> +
> +static const struct regulator_linear_range rk818_boost_voltage_ranges[] = {
> + REGULATOR_LINEAR_RANGE(4700000, 0, 7, 100000),
> +};
Why are these done as linear ranges when there's only one range? This
just adds overhead, just specify the one range directly in the desc and
use the appropriate ops.
> + if (rk808->variant == RK808_ID)
> + ret = of_regulator_match(dev, np, rk808_reg_matches,
> + RK808_NUM_REGULATORS);
> + else if (rk808->variant == RK818_ID)
> + ret = of_regulator_match(dev, np, rk818_reg_matches,
> + RK818_NUM_REGULATORS);
Don't use of_regulator_match, just specify the DT names for the
regulator in the desc. Also it looks like you're trying to write a
switch statement with ifs here, just write a switch statement. It's
clearer and less error prone.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists