From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752723AbaI3Q6M (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Sep 2014 12:58:12 -0400 Received: from gloria.sntech.de ([95.129.55.99]:51461 "EHLO gloria.sntech.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751219AbaI3Q6L (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Sep 2014 12:58:11 -0400 From: Heiko =?ISO-8859-1?Q?St=FCbner?= To: Doug Anderson Cc: Chris Zhong , linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org, Liam Girdwood , Mark Brown , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: rk808: Fix min_uV for DCDC1 & DCDC2 Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 18:57:51 +0200 Message-ID: <1716911.pj5CzLpxUR@phil> User-Agent: KMail/4.11.5 (Linux/3.13-1-amd64; KDE/4.11.3; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: <1412070294-5535-1-git-send-email-zyw@rock-chips.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Am Dienstag, 30. September 2014, 09:43:47 schrieb Doug Anderson: > Chris, > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 2:44 AM, Chris Zhong wrote: > > The min_uv in DCDC1 & DCDC2 should be 712.5mv > > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Zhong > > > > --- > > > > drivers/regulator/rk808-regulator.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/regulator/rk808-regulator.c > > b/drivers/regulator/rk808-regulator.c index e305416..196a5c8 100644 > > --- a/drivers/regulator/rk808-regulator.c > > +++ b/drivers/regulator/rk808-regulator.c > > @@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ static const int rk808_buck_config_regs[] = { > > > > }; > > > > static const struct regulator_linear_range rk808_buck_voltage_ranges[] = > > { > > > > - REGULATOR_LINEAR_RANGE(700000, 0, 63, 12500), > > + REGULATOR_LINEAR_RANGE(712500, 0, 63, 12500), > > > > }; > > I have no problem with this (and the current "dts" file I see don't go > this low anyway), but it doesn't match the datasheet I have right now > which says "0.700 V" is the min. Then it would be problem. The original statement above says, that a register value of "0" equals 700mV, so changing this in this way would mean everything runs 12.5mV above the target voltage. And I can confirm, that the current datasheet lists 700mV as equallying register value 0.