Hi Mark,
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Mark Brown
<broonie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
>
Ok. I got it.
>> >> + 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?
Here we are setting the max77686->ramp_delay and writing the same
value(max77686->ramp_delay << 6) at register also.
Thanks,
Yadwinder.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
