Nishanth Menon <nm@xxxxxx> writes: > Kevin Hilman wrote, on 02/02/2011 04:11 AM: >> Shweta Gulati<shweta.gulati@xxxxxx> writes: >> >>> From: Thara Gopinath<thara@xxxxxx> >>> >>> The smartreflex bit on twl4030 needs to be enabled by default irrespective >>> of whether smartreflex module is enabled on the OMAP side or not. >>> This is because without this bit enabled the voltage scaling through >>> vp forceupdate does not function properly on OMAP3.API added >>> 'omap3_twl_set_sr_bit' with parameter to set/clear SR bit. It is cleared >>> for platforms where voltage is not scaled using vpforceupdate >>> or vc_bypass Method. In those cases 'omap3_twl_set_sr_bit' is called >>> from board file, to make sure this bit is not overwritten in >>> 'omap3_twl_init', a flag 'twl_sr_enable' >>> is added. >> >> As Sanjeev pointed out, the use of 'irrespective' above is confusing, in >> fact the whole changelog is kind of confusing. >> >> The changelog states that it has to always be enabled, but then goes on >> to describe the situation(s) where it would be disabled. >> >> Here's my rephrasing of how I understand the above changelog >> >> - enable: *always* be enabled >> - enable: needed for VP force update >> - disable: platforms using VP forced update or VP bypass >> >> -ECONFUSED >> >> Kevin > > How about this as the commit log? > > The smartreflex bit on twl4030 specifies if the setting of voltage > is done over the I2C_SR path. Given that there are platforms that > do not use I2C_SR path for voltage scaling, a new function > 'omap3_twl_set_sr_bit' with parameter to set/clear SR bit has been > provided for flexibility. So far so good. > It is called with appropriate param > for platforms where voltage is not scaled using I2C_SR path > from board file, to make sure this bit is not overwritten in > 'omap3_twl_init'. -ENOPARSE > > >> >>> This patch is based on LO PM Branch and Smartreflex has been >>> tested on OMAP3430 SDP, OMAP3630 SDP and boot tested on >>> OMAP2430 SDP. > > this belongs into the diffstat. > > Attached is a modified version of this patch - i'vent tested it > though.. but basically improves the logic a little: > > *) made the comments more generic to ensure that this is more of > I2C_SR path as far as TWL is concerned(yes, from OMAP perspective it > is vp forceupdate/bypass), but it is more of an OMAP problem than > omap_twl.c problem. > *) modified the function call sequences to prevent rentry even if > board file calls with various other params > *) shifted to using bool > *) use init and initdata to free up the space once we are done with > init sequence All good changes, but I don't think they're incorporated in V3. > etc... > > > Do let me know if this is good enough. Not quite yet, Kevin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
