On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 03:55:06PM +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> + },
> + .num_consumer_supplies = 1,
> + .consumer_supplies = &tps6235x_consumers[0],
...
> + .num_consumer_supplies = 1,
> + .consumer_supplies = &tps6235x_consumers[1],
This code will work but flags up alarm bells when doing review - it
would be clearer to declare two separate variables, which is also less
error prone if someone takes your code and uses it as a template for
another board.
> +config REGULATOR_TPS6235X
> + bool "TPS6235X Power regulator for OMAP3EVM"
> + depends on PR785
> + help
> + This driver supports the voltage regulators provided by TPS6235x
> chips.
> + The TPS62352 and TPS62353 are mounted on PR785 Power module card for
> + providing voltage regulator functions.
This should probably be two drivers: a driver for the TPS6235x and a
driver for the power module card, otherwise systems that use the chip on
a different board won't be able to do so. Looking at the code it seems
you've got something fairly close to this structure already, it just
needs exposing.
> index 02a7744..901f402 100644
> --- a/drivers/regulator/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/regulator/core.c
> @@ -30,33 +30,6 @@ static LIST_HEAD(regulator_list);
> static LIST_HEAD(regulator_map_list);
>
> /**
> - * struct regulator_dev
> - *
> - * Voltage / Current regulator class device. One for each regulator.
> - */
> -struct regulator_dev {
> - struct regulator_desc *desc;
> - int use_count;
This is... interesting? I think all you're doing is looking inside to
get the driver data rather than using regulator_get_drvdata() - is there
anything else?
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..8a900db
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/regulator/tps6235x-regulator.c
> +#include <linux/regulator/driver.h>
> +#include <linux/regulator/machine.h>
> +#include <linux/i2c.h>
> +#include <linux/delay.h>
> +#include <linux/regulator/consumer.h>
Do you need the consumer header here?
> +
> +#define MODULE_NAME "tps6235x_power"
Really?
> +/* Debug functions */
> +#ifdef DEBUG
> +
> +#define dump_reg(client, reg, val) \
> + do { \
> + tps6235x_read_reg(client, reg, &val); \
> + dev_dbg(&(client)->dev, "Reg(0x%.2X): 0x%.2X\n", reg, val); \
> + } while (0)
> +
> +#endif /* #ifdef DEBUG */
static inline?
> +/* Maximum number of bytes to be read in a single read */
> +#define PR785_RETRY_COUNT 0x3
The name and comment don't seem to match up very well...
> +static int tps6235x_dcdc_is_enabled(struct regulator_dev *dev)
> +{
> + struct tps_6235x_info *tps_info =
> + (struct tps_6235x_info *)dev->reg_data;
Should use regulator_get_drvdata() for this.
> + return tps_info->state;
> +}
> +static int tps6235x_dcdc_set_voltage(struct regulator_dev *dev,
> + int min_uV, int max_uV)
> +{
> + struct tps_6235x_info *tps_info =
> + (struct tps_6235x_info *)dev->reg_data;
> + unsigned int millivolts = max_uV / 1000;
> +
> + return pr785_set_dcdc_volt(tps_info->tps_i2c_addr, millivolts) ;
> +}
Normally you'd want to go for the lowest voltage you can in the range
rather than the highest voltage. A driver doing voltage scaling for
power saving would be likely to call set_voltage() with a range from the
minimum that could currently be used to the maximum rated for the chip
since it's only trying to save power, it doesn't specifically *need* the
lower voltage. This allows the driver to run on systems where there are
additional constraints which prevent the use of the lowest voltages.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
