On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 02:49:19PM +0200, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
> Il 20/05/22 16:45, Mark Brown ha scritto:
> > On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 03:33:03PM +0200, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
> > > +static const unsigned int ldo_volt_table10[] = {
> > > + 1200000, 1300000, 1500000, 1800000,
> > > + 1200000, 1300000, 1500000, 1800000,
> > > + 1200000, 1300000, 1500000, 1800000,
> > > + 1200000, 1300000, 1500000, 1800000,
> > > +};
> > So the top bits of the voltate selection field just get ignored? Might
> > be easier to just write the code to not include the top bits.
> >
> No, they're all valid values for real... but I guess that I can simplify
> this voltage table by simply modifying the bitmask that we use for the
> regulators that are using this table....
Right, my point here is that it looks awfully like the documentation
(this came from documentation I guess?) is including some extra bits
that get ignored in the voltage selection field here. That seems like a
weird choice somewhere along the line.
> > > + if (info->qi > 0) {
> > > + reg = info->desc.enable_reg;
> > > + en_mask = info->qi;
> > If the regulator doesn't have status readback it shouldn't provide a
> > get_status() operation.
> What I've understood is that when there's no "QI" flag, the enable register
> will provide the regulator status (EN/DIS) acting like QI, that's why I've
> added that if branch...
> Anyway, I'll recheck this part before sending the next version!
That would be fairly unusual, often a regulator won't even detect when
it's gone out of regulation.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
