[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170324125438.5wy3r2mr3g5eaxvy@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 12:54:38 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Leonard Crestez <leonard.crestez@....com>
Cc: Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
Sascha Hauer <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
Robin Gong <yibin.gong@....com>,
Anson Huang <Anson.Huang@....com>,
Irina Tirdea <irina.tirdea@....com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@....com>,
Octavian Purdila <octavian.purdila@....com>,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 5/8] regulator: anatop: fix min dropout for bypass mode
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 06:53:07PM +0200, Leonard Crestez wrote:
> + if (anatop_reg->bypass)
> + anatop_reg->rdesc.min_dropout_uV = 0;
> + else
> + anatop_reg->rdesc.min_dropout_uV = LDO_MIN_DROPOUT_UV;
No, this is completely broken - you can't expect to randomly change hthe
regulator description at runtime behind the back of the framework and
expect things to work. If there is a need to do this we need an
interface for getting the current value and a way to notify of changes.
That said I would not expect the dropout voltage to be considered at
all when the regulator is bypassed, since the regulator is not
regulating it doesn't need any headroom.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists