[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190618105935.GM5316@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 11:59:35 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Nisha Kumari <nishakumari@...eaurora.org>
Cc: bjorn.andersson@...aro.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
agross@...nel.org, lgirdwood@...il.com, mark.rutland@....com,
david.brown@...aro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kgunda@...eaurora.org, rnayak@...eaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] regulator: Add labibb driver
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 11:51:18AM +0530, Nisha Kumari wrote:
> On 6/13/2019 10:55 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > + labibb->lab_vreg.vreg_enabled = 1;
> > What function does this serve? It never seems to be read.
> Its used in next patch for handling interrupts
It'd be better to move this code into the patch where it's used then.
> > > + if (val & IBB_STATUS1_VREG_OK_BIT) {
> > > + labibb->ibb_vreg.vreg_enabled = 1;
> > > + return 0;
> > > + }
> > > + }
> > This is doing more than the other regulator was but it's not clear why -
> > is it just that the delays are different for the two regulators?
> LAB regulator comes up in first try, so we did not added much delay in that
> like IBB. Planning to make equal no of retries for both in next patch so
> that code can be reused.
Is there actually a need for polling at all?
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists