On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 03:50:27PM +0900, MyungJoo Ham wrote:
Overall this looks very good.
> + if (ldo == MAX8997_ESAFEOUT1 || ldo == MAX8997_ESAFEOUT2) {
> + switch (selector) {
> + case 0:
> + return 4850000;
...
> + if (ldo == MAX8997_CHARGER_CV) {
For these special cases it'd be cleaner to just have separate functions
rather than conditional code in the implementation used by the majority.
> + switch (ldo) {
> + case MAX8997_LDO1 ... MAX8997_LDO21:
> + *reg = MAX8997_REG_LDO1CTRL + (ldo - MAX8997_LDO1);
> + *mask = 0xC0;
> + *pattern = 0xC0;
> + break;
> + case MAX8997_BUCK1:
The ldo variable is slightly misnamed, then? :)
[get_voltage]
> +
> + ret = max8997_list_voltage(rdev, val);
> +
> + return ret;
If you implement get_voltage_sel() you can just return the selector
directly.
> +/*
> + * Assess the damage on the voltage setting of BUCK1,2,5 by the change.
> + */
> +static int max8997_assess_side_effect(struct regulator_dev *rdev,
> + u8 new_val, int *best)
Some more detail in the comment would be very helpful here - what sort
of damage and what sort of change?
> + if (gpio_dvs_mode) {
> + desc = reg_voltage_map[ldo];
> + new_val = max8997_get_voltage_proper_val(desc, min_vol,
> + max_vol);
> + if (new_val < 0)
> + return new_val;
> +
> + damage = max8997_assess_side_effect(rdev, new_val, &new_idx);
> +
> + if (damage < 0)
> + return damage;
> +
> + max8997->buck125_gpioindex = new_idx;
> + max8997_set_gpio(max8997);
> + *selector = new_val;
> +
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> + return max8997_set_voltage_ldo(rdev, min_uV, max_uV, selector);
Putting this in the else clause would be a little clearer.
> +/* For SAFEOUT1 and SAFEOUT2 */
> +static int max8997_set_voltage_safeout(struct regulator_dev *rdev,
> + int min_uV, int max_uV, unsigned *selector)
> +{
> + struct max8997_data *max8997 = rdev_get_drvdata(rdev);
> + struct i2c_client *i2c = max8997->iodev->i2c;
> + int ldo = max8997_get_ldo(rdev);
> + int reg, shift = 0, mask, ret;
> + int i = 0;
> + u8 val;
> +
> + if (ldo != MAX8997_ESAFEOUT1 && ldo != MAX8997_ESAFEOUT2)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(safeoutvolt); i++) {
> + if (min_uV <= safeoutvolt[i] &&
> + max_uV >= safeoutvolt[i])
> + break;
If you implement this as a set_voltage_sel() operation it'd simplify
your code by doing this sort of lookup for you, including bounds
checking and so on.
> +static int max8997_reg_enable_suspend(struct regulator_dev *rdev)
> +{
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
This looks odd, especially since you have a disable operation?
> + if (ldo == MAX8997_LDO1 ||
> + ldo == MAX8997_LDO10 ||
> + ldo == MAX8997_LDO21) {
> + pr_info("Conditional Power-Off for %s\n", rdev->desc->name);
> + return max8997_update_reg(i2c, reg, 0x40, mask);
> + }
> +
> + pr_info("Full Power-Off for %s (%xh -> %xh)\n", rdev->desc->name,
> + max8997->saved_states[ldo] & mask, (~pattern) & mask);
dev_info().
> +static int max8997_resume(struct device *dev)
> +{
> + struct platform_device *pdev = container_of(dev,
> + struct platform_device, dev);
> + struct max8997_data *max8997 = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> + struct i2c_client *i2c = max8997->iodev->i2c;
> + struct regulator_dev *rdev;
> + int ret, reg, mask, pattern;
> + int i;
> + u8 val;
> +
> + /* Show Error/Warning Messages for Inconsistency */
> + for (i = 0; i < MAX8997_REG_MAX; i++) {
> + if (max8997->saved_rdev[i]) {
We should put this into the regulator core rather than doing it in
drivers - it's not really driver specific and other regulators that
can't preserve state over suspend and resume will need it.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
