On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 3:05 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 09:54:28PM -0800, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
>
>> + /*
>> + * Make the regulator reflect the configured voltage selected in
>> + * machine_constraints_voltage()
>> + */
>> + if (rdev->constraints->apply_uV &&
>> + rdev->constraints->min_uV == rdev->constraints->max_uV) {
>> + regulator->min_uV = rdev->constraints->min_uV;
>> + regulator->max_uV = rdev->constraints->min_uV;
>> + }
>> +
>
> Why not do this at the time we apply the voltage? That would seem to be
> more robust, doing it in a separate place means that we might update one
> bit of code and not the other or might change the execution path so that
> one gets run and the other doesn't.
I do share your concerns about having this logic mirrored here is
risky, unfortunately the regulator object is created upon request from
a consumer; so it is not available when regulator_register() calls
set_machine_constraints().
An alternative is to drop the conditional setting of
REGULATOR_CHANGE_VOLTAGE from of_regulator.c and force the regulator
drivers to set this flag explicitly; to avoid the difference in
behavior depending on configuration.
Regards,
Bjorn
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
