On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 6:50 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Add S2MPA01 support to the s2mps11 regulator driver. This obsoletes the > s2mpa01 regulator driver. > > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxxx> > @@ -216,30 +250,20 @@ static int s2mps11_set_ramp_delay(struct regulator_dev *rdev, int ramp_delay) > ramp_delay = s2mps11->ramp_delay16; > break; > case S2MPX_BUCK2: > - if (!ramp_delay) { > - ramp_enable = 0; > - break; > - } > - What if we want to disable ramp_delay from DT ? > - s2mps11->ramp_delay2 = ramp_delay; > + if (s2mps11->dev_type == S2MPS11X || > + ramp_delay > s2mps11->ramp_delay2) > + s2mps11->ramp_delay2 = ramp_delay; > + else /* S2MPA01 && ramp_delay <= s2mpa01->ramp_delay24 */ > + ramp_delay = s2mps11->ramp_delay2; Here ramp_delay = 0(ramp_disable case) is also getting over written, if required to take care of it later. > break; > case S2MPX_BUCK3: > - if (!ramp_delay) { > - ramp_enable = 0; > - break; > - } [snip] > > - if (!ramp_enable) > - goto ramp_disable; > - > - /* Ramp delay can be enabled/disabled only for buck[2346] */ > if (ramp_reg->enable_supported) { > + if (ramp_disable) typo ? if (!ramp_enable) / if (!ramp_delay) ? > + goto ramp_disable; > + Also TBH, I can't get rationale behind this merge, As i can't see considerable reduction in no of C code lines in comp of added complexity. Is there considerable advantage in binary stats of single driver as compare to independent drivers? Regards, Yadwinder -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html