On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 9:05 AM Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 02:25:53PM -0700, Jeffrey Hugo wrote:
>
> > +static int spmi_regulator_ftsmps426_set_voltage(struct regulator_dev *rdev,
> > + unsigned selector)
> > +{
> > + struct spmi_regulator *vreg = rdev_get_drvdata(rdev);
> > + u8 buf[2];
> > + int mV;
> > +
> > + mV = spmi_regulator_common_list_voltage(rdev, selector) / 1000;
> > +
> > + buf[0] = mV & 0xff;
> > + buf[1] = mV >> 8;
> > + return spmi_vreg_write(vreg, SPMI_FTSMPS426_REG_VOLTAGE_LSB, buf, 2);
> > +}
>
> This could just be a set_voltage_sel(), no need for it to be a
> set_voltage() operation....
This is a set_voltage_sel() in spmi_ftsmps426_ops. Is the issue because this
function is "spmi_regulator_ftsmps426_set_voltage" and not
"spmi_regulator_ftsmps426_set_voltage_sel"?
>
> > +static int spmi_regulator_ftsmps426_get_voltage(struct regulator_dev *rdev)
> > +{
> > + struct spmi_regulator *vreg = rdev_get_drvdata(rdev);
> > + u8 buf[2];
> > +
> > + spmi_vreg_read(vreg, SPMI_FTSMPS426_REG_VOLTAGE_LSB, buf, 2);
> > +
> > + return (((unsigned int)buf[1] << 8) | (unsigned int)buf[0]) * 1000;
> > +}
>
> ...or if the conversion is this trivial why do the list_voltage() lookup
> above?
We already have code in the driver to convert a selector to the
voltage. Why duplicate
that inline in spmi_regulator_ftsmps426_set_voltage?
>
> > +spmi_regulator_ftsmps426_set_mode(struct regulator_dev *rdev, unsigned int mode)
> > +{
> > + struct spmi_regulator *vreg = rdev_get_drvdata(rdev);
> > + u8 mask = SPMI_FTSMPS426_MODE_MASK;
> > + u8 val;
> > +
> > + switch (mode) {
> > + case REGULATOR_MODE_NORMAL:
> > + val = SPMI_FTSMPS426_MODE_HPM_MASK;
> > + break;
> > + case REGULATOR_MODE_FAST:
> > + val = SPMI_FTSMPS426_MODE_AUTO_MASK;
> > + break;
> > + default:
> > + val = SPMI_FTSMPS426_MODE_LPM_MASK;
> > + break;
> > + }
>
> This should validate, it shouldn't just translate invalid values into
> valid ones.
Validate what? The other defines are REGULATOR_MODE_IDLE
and REGULATOR_MODE_STANDBY which correspond to the LPM
mode. Or are you suggesting that regulator framework is going to pass
REGULATOR_MODE_INVALID to this operation?
