On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 09:18:30PM +0530, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
> +static int tps65910_set_suspend_enable(struct regulator_dev *dev)
> +{
> + struct tps65910_reg *pmic = rdev_get_drvdata(dev);
> + int id = rdev_get_id(dev);
> + /*
> + * If regulator is controlled through external control then
> + * it can be enable/disable by toggling external signal.
> + */
> + if (pmic->board_ext_control[id])
> + return 0;
> + else
> + return tps65910_set_mode(dev, REGULATOR_MODE_NORMAL);
> +}
I'm really confuseed now. This definitely looks like it's doing the
wrong thing for the non-ext_control case, it's setting the mode which
really isn't what this is supposed to do and collides with any actual
configuration of the mode that might happen...
> + /*
> + * Keep the regulator in OFF state if it needs to be disable
> + * in suspend state.
> + */
> + if (pmic->board_ext_control[id]) {
> + u8 regoffs = (pmic->ext_sleep_control[id] >> 8) & 0xFF;
> + u8 bit_pos = (1 << pmic->ext_sleep_control[id] & 0xFF);
> + int ret;
> + ret = tps65910_clear_bits(mfd,
> + TPS65910_SLEEP_KEEP_LDO_ON + regoffs, bit_pos);
> + if (!ret)
> + ret = tps65910_set_bits(mfd,
> + TPS65910_SLEEP_SET_LDO_OFF + regoffs, bit_pos);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + dev_err(mfd->dev,
> + "Error in configuring SLEEP register\n");
...and I'd really expect something that reverses these changes?
The actual bits setting up the ext_control look OK - can you split those
off from the bits implementing the suspend mode callbacks please so they
can be applied while the callbacks are reviewed?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
