[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20230405140829.602413-1-bbara93@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2023 16:08:29 +0200
From: Benjamin Bara <bbara93@...il.com>
To: broonie@...nel.org
Cc: DLG-Adam.Thomson.Opensource@...renesas.com, bbara93@...il.com,
benjamin.bara@...data.com, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, lee@...nel.org,
lgirdwood@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
mazziesaccount@...il.com, robh+dt@...nel.org,
stwiss.opensource@...semi.com, support.opensource@...semi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] regulator: da9063: implement basic XVP setter
Thank you for the feedback!
On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 at 12:52, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> I have no idea what a "basic XVP setter" is and this isn't super
> enlightening. Is VP supposed to mean voltage protection or something?
Yes, but basically this series handles just the monitoring part. The
"protection part" is happening in hardware (at least on our board). So I will
reword "XVP" to "voltage monitoring" in the next version.
> I'm not sure that a user is going to figure out that this refers to the
> protection levels, there's no hint as to what the X might be and the error
> suggests that both the under and over voltage protection limits must be have
> the same value, not just both be provided.
I will split up the "catch-all" into an error per severity, like:
"error-microvolt: value must be equal for uv and ov!"
I will also ensure that there is only one severity set per regulator.
Additionally, will also adapt the docu: if the voltage monitor should be
changed, uv and ov must be set to the same severity and value.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists