On wto, 2014-05-27 at 12:00 +0530, Yadwinder Singh Brar wrote:
> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 6:50 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <k.kozlow...@samsung.com> wrote:
> > Add S2MPA01 support to the s2mps11 regulator driver. This obsoletes the
> > s2mpa01 regulator driver.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlow...@samsung.com>
>
> > @@ -216,30 +250,20 @@ static int s2mps11_set_ramp_delay(struct
> > regulator_dev *rdev, int ramp_delay)
> > ramp_delay = s2mps11->ramp_delay16;
> > break;
> > case S2MPX_BUCK2:
> > - if (!ramp_delay) {
> > - ramp_enable = 0;
> > - break;
> > - }
> > -
>
> What if we want to disable ramp_delay from DT ?
It will work OK because at the beginning of s2mps11_set_ramp_delay():
unsigned int ramp_disable = !ramp_delay;
This 'ramp_disable' is later used if enable/disable is supported.
>
> > - s2mps11->ramp_delay2 = ramp_delay;
> > + if (s2mps11->dev_type == S2MPS11X ||
> > + ramp_delay > s2mps11->ramp_delay2)
> > + s2mps11->ramp_delay2 = ramp_delay;
> > + else /* S2MPA01 && ramp_delay <= s2mpa01->ramp_delay24 */
> > + ramp_delay = s2mps11->ramp_delay2;
>
> Here ramp_delay = 0(ramp_disable case) is also getting over written,
> if required to take care of it later.
The same, it is already stored as 'ramp_disable' local variable.
>
> > break;
> > case S2MPX_BUCK3:
> > - if (!ramp_delay) {
> > - ramp_enable = 0;
> > - break;
> > - }
>
> [snip]
>
> >
> > - if (!ramp_enable)
> > - goto ramp_disable;
> > -
> > - /* Ramp delay can be enabled/disabled only for buck[2346] */
> > if (ramp_reg->enable_supported) {
> > + if (ramp_disable)
>
> typo ? if (!ramp_enable) / if (!ramp_delay) ?
I think it is good. I changed the 'ramp_enable' into 'ramp_disable'.
Anyway while reviewing the code I found that I didn't updated the case
statements with new BUCKX enum values and the register for
enable/disable is hard-coded. I'll fix it.
>
> > + goto ramp_disable;
> > +
>
>
> Also TBH, I can't get rationale behind this merge, As i can't see
> considerable reduction in no of C code lines in comp of added
> complexity.
> Is there considerable advantage in binary stats of single driver as
> compare to independent drivers?
Overall more code is removed than added:
6 files changed, 454 insertions(+), 719 deletions(-)
but you are right that the code for ramp delay is now more complex. What
is worth noting now most of ramp delay settings are moved to an array:
static const struct s2mpx_ramp_reg s2mps11_ramp_regs[] = {
[S2MPX_BUCK1] = s2mps11_ramp_reg(BUCK16),
[S2MPX_BUCK2] = s2mps11_buck2346_ramp_reg(BUCK2, RAMP, BUCK2),
[S2MPX_BUCK3] = s2mps11_buck2346_ramp_reg(BUCK34, RAMP, BUCK3)
instead of being hard-coded into the big switch statement like it was
before.
Alternative solution to complex ramp delay setting is to just use
original functions: s2mps11_set_ramp_delay and s2mpa01_set_ramp_delay.
These chips are really similar so having two drivers seems like doubling
the effort for maintaining them.
Thanks for comments.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
