On Fri, 2012-02-24 at 14:01 +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > 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. Still, setting selector in this case does nothing, as it is immediately overwritten by the regulator core by -1. This looks like a perfectly acceptable way to implement a regulator, as everything checks for the presence of list_voltage anyway. If you really insist, I could probably make something that does a list_voltage and shows min and max voltages for the regulator, but I don't know about the usefulness of that. -Tero -- 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
