On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 2:08 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 04:50:41PM -0700, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > >> Reinstating the following snippet in of_get_regulation_constraints() >> sort this out: > >> if (constraints->min_uV && constraints->max_uV) >> constraints->apply_uV = true; > > The existing check in the patch should be an || not an ==, or possibly > we should just not bother looking for min_uV at all. I just pushed out > a version of that, let's see how that goes. > Either way is fine with me, as long as we either go ahead and apply a voltage setting now or allow a consumer to do so later (your posted patch does both). >> I did look at an alternative of having regulator_set_voltage() pass >> and call set_voltage() if the requested voltage matches the >> constraints, but this does indeed seem to mess things up. So checking >> in with you before continuing on that hack. > > Yes, not everything is writeable. Right, looking at your posted patch [1] we're changing this logic so that normal regulators defined with min == max will be allowed to set_voltage(). Thinking about it that makes sense and cleans the logic up, so I'm in favor of this. I know it's published, but fwiw you have my Acked-by on the posted patch. [1] https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/broonie/regulator.git/commit/?h=for-next&id=fa93fd4ecc9c58475abac6db93a797bff893bc16 Regards, Bjorn -- 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
 |