On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 04:07:42PM -0800, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > On Wed 28 Jan 11:52 PST 2015, Mark Brown wrote: > > This is basically fine but can you please rename this to be something > > that more directly reflects the fact that we're just informing the > > driver about the operating parameters - there are other things a driver > > could usefully do with this, for example set current limits so that if > > something starts to consume excessive current the device will flag this > > as an error. > The purpose of the series was to be able to implement patch 9, which > will utilize the load_uA to set the "mode" of the Qualcomm regulators. > So I would like it to be a "setter of current consumption". > I'm not sure what to name the function to have it cover these additional > cases. notify_load() or something? That's what it's doing, what the driver does with it is a separate thing. > > It'd also be better to split the voltage specs out into a separate > > function, especially for the output voltage where obviously we have a > > separate range based interface for setting that. > The current implementors of get_optimum_mode all ignore the voltages, so > we could effectively simplify the interface to: > get_optimum_mode(rdev, load); > Question is if there are any implementations where we don't know the > output voltage in the regulator driver (as locking prevents us from > using the standard interface of querying this). Input voltage is just a > query away. We can always fix the locking to let people query the voltage if they need to. > Having drms_uA_update() request an appropriate mode for the given load > and then calling set_mode directly (the current implementation) gives us > a single point of entry to the regulator drivers related to setting > modes (regulator_set_mode and drms_uA_update calls set_mode). But seen > from a consumer there's no consistency; the last call to > regulator_set_mode() and regulator_set_optimum_mode() will win. That's fine, consumers shouldn't be using both simultaneously anyway. If a consumer is actually setting modes actively at runtime by name it needs to be fairly closely tied to a specific system and regulator so it's not clear if there's much use case anyway. > I think this covers your concern about patch 3-7 as well, please let me > know what you think. Possibly.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
