From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752668AbaJGD3X (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Oct 2014 23:29:23 -0400 Received: from regular1.263xmail.com ([211.150.99.135]:59213 "EHLO regular1.263xmail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752160AbaJGD3W (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Oct 2014 23:29:22 -0400 X-263anti-spam: KSV:0;BIG:0; X-MAIL-GRAY: 0 X-MAIL-DELIVERY: 1 X-KSVirus-check: 0 X-ABS-CHECKED: 1 X-RL-SENDER: zyw@rock-chips.com X-FST-TO: broonie@kernel.org X-SENDER-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-LOGIN-NAME: zyw@rock-chips.com X-UNIQUE-TAG: <98754e1717ec95670bda41280ae0e21b> X-ATTACHMENT-NUM: 0 X-DNS-TYPE: 1 Message-ID: <54335E0B.301@rock-chips.com> Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 11:29:15 +0800 From: Chris Zhong User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Brown , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Heiko_St=FCbner?= CC: Doug Anderson , linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org, Liam Girdwood , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: rk808: Fix min_uV for DCDC1 & DCDC2 References: <1412070294-5535-1-git-send-email-zyw@rock-chips.com> <1716911.pj5CzLpxUR@phil> <20140930225241.GO4273@sirena.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20140930225241.GO4273@sirena.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 10/01/2014 06:52 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 06:57:51PM +0200, Heiko Stübner wrote: >> Am Dienstag, 30. September 2014, 09:43:47 schrieb Doug Anderson: >>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 2:44 AM, Chris Zhong wrote: >>>> - 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. > Has anyone got a voltmeter? The latest datasheet has fixed this error. The register value of "0" equals 712.5mV, so the max value can reach 1.5v but not 1.4875v.