On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 12:44:43PM +0200, Michael Hennerich wrote: > On 04/13/2011 07:24 PM, Mark Brown wrote: Please cut irrelevant context from your replies. > >>> Updating the core to allow negative and zero voltages, is not straight > >>> forward. > >>> There are more issues with constrain checking and I currently can't > >>> oversee all side > > What are the issues that you see? > In case the output voltage can be negative, the input voltage may be > negative as well. > In functions drms_uA_update() and regulator_set_optimum_mode(), the > input supply voltage > is checked for being > 0, if that fails it uses the constrains->input_uV > instead... None of this seems particularly complicated to deal with, it's not a massive change in the architecture of the code or anything - it's all just refactoring interfaces and implementations a bit. > BTW: Function drms_uA_update() looks suspicious. > /* get input voltage */ > input_uV = 0; > if (rdev->supply) > input_uV = _regulator_get_voltage(rdev); > it checks for rdev->supply but later uses rdev, which will ultimately > mean input_uV == output_uV. There's very few users of supplies in mainline and no users at all of the optimal mode stuff. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
