From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: haojian.zhuang@gmail.com (Haojian Zhuang) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 06:54:48 -0500 Subject: [PATCH 01/01] regulator: support max8649 In-Reply-To: <20100126110420.GI15759@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main> References: <771cded01001120041ue24edabk8e4638ef7151c947@mail.gmail.com> <771cded01001120051l44fd76bx80d2fd4b6f60bd0b@mail.gmail.com> <20100112115156.GA546@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main> <771cded01001250301q465a9f8ma484f597ae9a292f@mail.gmail.com> <20100125135628.GB26613@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main> <771cded01001252226k342723b3p3ea235fe79c46843@mail.gmail.com> <20100126110420.GI15759@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main> Message-ID: <771cded01001260354y7c7db25bqa8bbfe000e0c0380@mail.gmail.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 6:04 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 01:26:08AM -0500, Haojian Zhuang wrote: > > This all looks good except... > >> +static int max8649_enable_time(struct regulator_dev *rdev) >> +{ > > ... > >> + ? ? return (voltage / step); > > I'd expect the time taken to enable to be the voltage multipled by the > step size rather than divided by the step size? > I don't agree at this point. The unit of step is uV/uSec. The function should return uSec. So voltage divided by the step is more reasonable. Others are updated. Thanks Haojian -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 0001-regulator-enable-max8649-regulator-driver.patch Type: text/x-patch Size: 13589 bytes Desc: not available URL: