On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 03:56:05PM +0200, Tero Kristo wrote: > So, do you want me to also change the num_voltages value for the > regulator from zero to be the same as max_uV, as we have this check > within regulator/core: > if (!ops->list_voltage || selector >= rdev->desc->n_voltages) > return -EINVAL; > This will also potentially make some code to iterate over regulator > voltages for ~1.5M times. I still don't think adding list_voltage for > the SMPS regulators makes any sense, unless either the API for > regulator_list_voltage is changed, or we change the control for these > regulators completely from set_voltage() based to set_voltage_sel() > based implementation. Well, the important thing here is to fill in something useful for the returned selector rather than just leaving it undefined. Providing a list_voltage() would be nice and make things more robust.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
