Re: [PATCHv3 3/6] regulator: omap smps regulator driver

Tero Kristo
2011-07-19T07:58:24Z

On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 20:22 +0200, Balbi, Felipe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 08:35:19PM +0300, Tero Kristo wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/regulator/omap-smps-regulator.c b/drivers/regulator/omap-smps-regulator.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000..8b56e4f
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/drivers/regulator/omap-smps-regulator.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,179 @@
> > +/*
> > + * omap-vp-regulator.c -- support SMPS regulators for OMAP chips
>
> name is wrong here.
>
> > + *
> > + * Copyright (C) 2011 Texas Instruments, Inc.
> > + *
> > + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> > + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> > + * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
> > + * (at your option) any later version.
> > + */
> > +
> > +#include <linux/kernel.h>
> > +#include <linux/ctype.h>
> > +#include <linux/module.h>
> > +#include <linux/slab.h>
> > +#include <linux/init.h>
> > +#include <linux/err.h>
> > +#include <linux/delay.h>
> > +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
> > +#include <linux/regulator/driver.h>
> > +#include <linux/regulator/machine.h>
> > +#include <linux/regulator/omap-smps.h>
> > +#include <plat/voltage.h>
> > +
> > +#define DRIVER_NAME "omap-smps"
> > +
> > +struct omap_smps_reg_info {
> > + const char *vdd_name;
> > + struct regulator_dev *rdev;
> > + struct voltagedomain *voltdm;
> > + struct regulator_desc desc;
> > +};
> > +
> > +static int omap_smps_set_voltage(struct regulator_dev *rdev, int min_uV,
> > + int max_uV, unsigned *selector)
> > +{
> > + struct omap_smps_reg_info *info = rdev_get_drvdata(rdev);
> > + return voltdm_scale(info->voltdm, min_uV);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int omap_smps_get_voltage(struct regulator_dev *rdev)
> > +{
> > + struct omap_smps_reg_info *info = rdev_get_drvdata(rdev);
> > + return omap_vp_get_curr_volt(info->voltdm);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static struct regulator_ops omap_smps_ops = {
>
> should this be const ?
>

I think it can be yea, I'll change that for next version.