On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 6:50 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski
<k.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Add S2MPA01 support to the s2mps11 regulator driver. This obsoletes the
> s2mpa01 regulator driver.
>
> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> @@ -216,30 +250,20 @@ static int s2mps11_set_ramp_delay(struct regulator_dev *rdev, int ramp_delay)
> ramp_delay = s2mps11->ramp_delay16;
> break;
> case S2MPX_BUCK2:
> - if (!ramp_delay) {
> - ramp_enable = 0;
> - break;
> - }
> -
What if we want to disable ramp_delay from DT ?
> - s2mps11->ramp_delay2 = ramp_delay;
> + if (s2mps11->dev_type == S2MPS11X ||
> + ramp_delay > s2mps11->ramp_delay2)
> + s2mps11->ramp_delay2 = ramp_delay;
> + else /* S2MPA01 && ramp_delay <= s2mpa01->ramp_delay24 */
> + ramp_delay = s2mps11->ramp_delay2;
Here ramp_delay = 0(ramp_disable case) is also getting over written,
if required to take care of it later.
> break;
> case S2MPX_BUCK3:
> - if (!ramp_delay) {
> - ramp_enable = 0;
> - break;
> - }
[snip]
>
> - if (!ramp_enable)
> - goto ramp_disable;
> -
> - /* Ramp delay can be enabled/disabled only for buck[2346] */
> if (ramp_reg->enable_supported) {
> + if (ramp_disable)
typo ? if (!ramp_enable) / if (!ramp_delay) ?
> + goto ramp_disable;
> +
Also TBH, I can't get rationale behind this merge, As i can't see
considerable reduction in no of C code lines in comp of added
complexity.
Is there considerable advantage in binary stats of single driver as
compare to independent drivers?
Regards,
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
