On Thu 15 Dec 04:21 PST 2016, Avaneesh Kumar Dwivedi wrote:
> -static int q6v5_regulator_init(struct q6v5 *qproc)
> +static int q6v5_regulator_init(struct device *dev, struct reg_info *regs,
> + const struct qcom_mss_reg_res *reg_res)
> {
> - int ret;
> + int count = 0;
> + int rc;
> + int i;
>
> - qproc->supply[Q6V5_SUPPLY_CX].supply = "cx";
> - qproc->supply[Q6V5_SUPPLY_MX].supply = "mx";
> - qproc->supply[Q6V5_SUPPLY_MSS].supply = "mss";
> - qproc->supply[Q6V5_SUPPLY_PLL].supply = "pll";
> + while (reg_res[count].supply)
> + count++;
>
> - ret = devm_regulator_bulk_get(qproc->dev,
> - ARRAY_SIZE(qproc->supply), qproc->supply);
> - if (ret < 0) {
> - dev_err(qproc->dev, "failed to get supplies\n");
> - return ret;
> - }
> + for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
As with the clock init you can squash these two loops into one now.
[..]
> static const struct rproc_hexagon_res msm8916_mss = {
> .hexagon_mba_image = "mba.mbn",
> + .proxy_supply = (struct qcom_mss_reg_res[]) {
> + {
> + .supply = "mx",
> + .uV = 1050000,
> + },
> + {
> + .supply = "cx",
> + .uA = 100000,
> + },
> + {
> + .supply = "pll",
> + .uA = 100000,
> + },
> + { NULL }
It's idiomatic to use {} instead of { NULL }, so please update this (but
not in the clock patch).
As with the clock patch, please squash patch 4 into this one - so that
we have regulators before and after applying this single patch.
Regards,
Bjorn
