On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 10:00:15AM -0800, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > So we should be changing the code to allow a set_voltage() that sets the > > voltage to the existing voltage regardless of constraints allowing a > > change then - that's what the underlying issue is. Your change wouldn't > > cover the case where the hardware defualt is being used for example. > Makes sense, but the only thing we could check for would be if min_uV > == max_uV == current-voltage. That would work out fine for this use > case, but do you think it would be good enough? It should be fine to check for min_uV <= current-voltage <= max_uV instead if CHANGE_VOLTAGE isn't available, so long as the existing setting is in the range it's fine. > The best thing I've come up with then is to add the following check in > regulator_set_voltage(). > if (min_uV == max_uV && _regulator_get_voltage(rdev) == min_uV) > goto out; > Would this be acceptable? It's achieving the same thing as my patch, > is more robust and covers the case of setting the voltage to the hw > default value. That sort of thing yes, just short circuit out the main logic in this case.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
