Re: [PATCH] regulator: When constraining modes fall back to higher power modes

[Liam Girdwood <lrg@slimlogic.co.uk>]

On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 06:29 +0900, Mark Brown wrote:
> If a mode requested by a consumer is not allowed by constraints
> automatically fall back to a higher power mode if possible. This
> ensures that consumers get at least the output they requested while
> allowing machine drivers to transparently limit lower power modes
> if required.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
> ---
> 
> I've not actually had a chance to test this but throwing it out there
> for comment and testing now; someone with an OMAP board can probably
> test fairly quickly as the OMAP HSMMC driver is using set_mode().
> 
>  drivers/regulator/core.c |   24 +++++++++++++++---------
>  1 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/regulator/core.c b/drivers/regulator/core.c
> index 3ffc697..a634946 100644
> --- a/drivers/regulator/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/regulator/core.c
> @@ -197,9 +197,9 @@ static int regulator_check_current_limit(struct regulator_dev *rdev,
>  }
>  
>  /* operating mode constraint check */
> -static int regulator_check_mode(struct regulator_dev *rdev, int mode)
> +static int regulator_mode_constrain(struct regulator_dev *rdev, int *mode)
>  {
> -	switch (mode) {
> +	switch (*mode) {
>  	case REGULATOR_MODE_FAST:
>  	case REGULATOR_MODE_NORMAL:
>  	case REGULATOR_MODE_IDLE:
> @@ -217,11 +217,17 @@ static int regulator_check_mode(struct regulator_dev *rdev, int mode)
>  		rdev_err(rdev, "operation not allowed\n");
>  		return -EPERM;
>  	}
> -	if (!(rdev->constraints->valid_modes_mask & mode)) {
> -		rdev_err(rdev, "invalid mode %x\n", mode);
> -		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	/* The modes are bitmasks, the most power hungry modes having
> +	 * the lowest values. If the requested mode isn't supported
> +	 * try higher modes. */
> +	while (*mode) {
> +		if (rdev->constraints->valid_modes_mask & *mode)
> +			return 0;
> +		*mode /= 2;
>  	}
> -	return 0;
> +
> +	return -EINVAL;
>  }

It's late and I'm wondering if it's cleaner here just to :-

if (mask & *mode)
	return 0;

*mode = fls(mask);
if (*mode)
	return 0;

return -EINVAL;


What do you think ?

Liam