On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 03:50:07PM +0100, Markus Pargmann wrote:
> @@ -771,7 +794,7 @@ static struct regulator_ops tps65910_ops = {
> .get_voltage_sel = tps65910_get_voltage_sel,
> .set_voltage_sel = tps65910_set_voltage_sel,
> .list_voltage = regulator_list_voltage_table,
> - .map_voltage = regulator_map_voltage_ascend,
> + .map_voltage = regulator_map_voltage_iterate,
> };
You should make separate ops for this rather than make all the other
regulators take the performance hit.
> static struct regulator_ops tps65911_ops = {
> @@ -944,6 +967,7 @@ static struct of_regulator_match tps65910_matches[] = {
> { .name = "vaux2", .driver_data = (void *) &tps65910_regs[10] },
> { .name = "vaux33", .driver_data = (void *) &tps65910_regs[11] },
> { .name = "vmmc", .driver_data = (void *) &tps65910_regs[12] },
> + { .name = "vbb", .driver_data = (void *) &tps65910_regs[13] },
> };
Ugh, these numbered tables aren't good. Not a problem from this patch
though.
> - pmic->desc[i].enable_mask = TPS65910_SUPPLY_STATE_ENABLED;
> + if (tps65910_chip_id(tps65910) == TPS65910 &&
> + i == TPS65910_REG_VBB)
> + pmic->desc[i].enable_mask = BBCH_BBCHEN_MASK;
> + else
> + pmic->desc[i].enable_mask = TPS65910_SUPPLY_STATE_ENABLED;
switch statements please - it means if additional things need
customising they can drop right in.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
