On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:54:24PM +0530, Yadwinder Singh Brar wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:17 AM, Mark Brown
> > On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 09:54:55PM +0530, Yadwinder Singh wrote:
> >> + [MAX77686_EN32KHZ_AP] = NULL,
> >> + [MAX77686_EN32KHZ_CP] = NULL,
> > Now that the generic clock API is in mainline these should be moved over
> > to use it.
> Sorry, I cann't get your point here. Please explain it little bit more.
These are not regulators, these are clocks. They should use the clock
API.
> >> + if (pdata->ramp_delay) {
> >> + max77686->ramp_delay = pdata->ramp_delay;
> >> + max77686_update_reg(i2c, MAX77686_REG_BUCK2CTRL1,
> >> + RAMP_VALUE, RAMP_MASK);
> > This appears not to actually use the value passed in as platform_data.
> It gets corresponding index of ramp_rate value in ramp_rate_value
> table supported by hardware, from platform_data which we write to
> ramp_rate control bits of control registers.
Why is the driver unconditionally writing these register values here
rather than setting the ramp delay that was passed in?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
