Hi
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011, Abhilash K V wrote:
> From: Abhilash K V <abhilash.kv@xxxxxx>
>
> If PMIC info is not available in omap_vp_init(), abort.
>
> Signed-off-by: Abhilash K V <abhilash.kv@xxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/arm/mach-omap2/vp.c | 7 +++++++
> 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/vp.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/vp.c
> index 66bd700..0ed3d13 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/vp.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/vp.c
> @@ -41,6 +41,13 @@ void __init omap_vp_init(struct voltagedomain *voltdm)
> u32 val, sys_clk_rate, timeout, waittime;
> u32 vddmin, vddmax, vstepmin, vstepmax;
>
> + if (!voltdm->pmic || !voltdm->pmic->uv_to_vsel) {
> + pr_err("%s: PMIC info requried to configure VP for "
> + "vdd_%s not populated.Hence cannot initialize VP\n",
> + __func__, voltdm->name);
> + return;
> + }
> +
Just wondering about the intent of this patch. Is the goal here to not
call omap_vp_init() for chips that don't have a VP IP block? If so, then
implementing code that does that directly seems like a better approach
than using the PMIC data? Because it seems likely that even SoCs without
VP IP blocks will have PMICs on the board, right?
- Paul
--
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
