public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [PATCH RFT] regulator: pfuze100: Fix n_voltages setting for SW2~SW4 with high bit set
@ 2013-07-30  2:46 Axel Lin
  2013-07-30  3:23 ` Robin Gong
  2013-07-30 10:21 ` Mark Brown
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Axel Lin @ 2013-07-30  2:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Mark Brown; +Cc: Robin Gong, Liam Girdwood, linux-kernel

Current code adjust min_uV and uV_step but missed adjusting the n_voltages
setting.

When BIT6 is clear:
        n_voltages = (1975000 - 400000) / 25000 + 1 = 64
When BIT6 is set:
        n_voltages = (3300000 - 800000) / 50000 + 1 = 51

The n_voltages needs update because when BIT6 is set 0x73 ~ 0x7f are reserved.
When using regulator_list_voltage_linear, the n_voltages does matter here
because wrong n_voltages setting make the equation return wrong result.
e.g. if selector is 63, regulator_list_voltage_linear returns
     800000 + (50000 * 63) = 4000000
     It should return -EINVAL if the selector is in the range of 51 ~ 63.

Signed-off-by: Axel Lin <axel.lin@ingics.com>
---
 drivers/regulator/pfuze100-regulator.c | 16 ++++++++--------
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/regulator/pfuze100-regulator.c b/drivers/regulator/pfuze100-regulator.c
index 2dadc31..a77379b 100644
--- a/drivers/regulator/pfuze100-regulator.c
+++ b/drivers/regulator/pfuze100-regulator.c
@@ -387,8 +387,11 @@ static int pfuze100_regulator_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
 
 	for (i = 0; i < PFUZE100_MAX_REGULATOR; i++) {
 		struct regulator_init_data *init_data;
+		struct regulator_desc *desc;
 		int val;
 
+		desc = &pfuze_chip->regulator_descs[i].desc;
+
 		if (pdata)
 			init_data = pdata->init_data[i];
 		else
@@ -396,13 +399,11 @@ static int pfuze100_regulator_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
 
 		/* SW2~SW4 high bit check and modify the voltage value table */
 		if (i > PFUZE100_SW1C && i < PFUZE100_SWBST) {
-			regmap_read(pfuze_chip->regmap, PFUZE100_SW2VOL +
-					(i - PFUZE100_SW2) * 7, &val);
+			regmap_read(pfuze_chip->regmap, desc->vsel_reg, &val);
 			if (val & 0x40) {
-				pfuze_chip->regulator_descs[i].desc.min_uV
-				= 800000;
-				pfuze_chip->regulator_descs[i].desc.uV_step
-				= 50000;
+				desc->min_uV = 800000;
+				desc->uV_step = 50000;
+				desc->n_voltages = 51;
 			}
 		}
 
@@ -411,8 +412,7 @@ static int pfuze100_regulator_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
 		config.driver_data = pfuze_chip;
 		config.of_node = match_of_node(i);
 
-		pfuze_chip->regulators[i] = regulator_register(&pfuze_chip
-			->regulator_descs[i].desc, &config);
+		pfuze_chip->regulators[i] = regulator_register(desc, &config);
 		if (IS_ERR(pfuze_chip->regulators[i])) {
 			dev_err(&client->dev, "register regulator%s failed\n",
 				pfuze100_regulators[i].desc.name);
-- 
1.8.1.2




^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH RFT] regulator: pfuze100: Fix n_voltages setting for SW2~SW4 with high bit set
  2013-07-30  2:46 [PATCH RFT] regulator: pfuze100: Fix n_voltages setting for SW2~SW4 with high bit set Axel Lin
@ 2013-07-30  3:23 ` Robin Gong
  2013-07-30 10:21   ` Mark Brown
  2013-07-30 10:21 ` Mark Brown
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Robin Gong @ 2013-07-30  3:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Axel Lin; +Cc: Mark Brown, Liam Girdwood, linux-kernel

Ok for me.
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:46:28AM +0800, Axel Lin wrote:
> Current code adjust min_uV and uV_step but missed adjusting the n_voltages
> setting.
> 
> When BIT6 is clear:
>         n_voltages = (1975000 - 400000) / 25000 + 1 = 64
> When BIT6 is set:
>         n_voltages = (3300000 - 800000) / 50000 + 1 = 51
> 
> The n_voltages needs update because when BIT6 is set 0x73 ~ 0x7f are reserved.
> When using regulator_list_voltage_linear, the n_voltages does matter here
> because wrong n_voltages setting make the equation return wrong result.
> e.g. if selector is 63, regulator_list_voltage_linear returns
>      800000 + (50000 * 63) = 4000000
>      It should return -EINVAL if the selector is in the range of 51 ~ 63.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Axel Lin <axel.lin@ingics.com>
> ---
>  drivers/regulator/pfuze100-regulator.c | 16 ++++++++--------
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/regulator/pfuze100-regulator.c b/drivers/regulator/pfuze100-regulator.c
> index 2dadc31..a77379b 100644
> --- a/drivers/regulator/pfuze100-regulator.c
> +++ b/drivers/regulator/pfuze100-regulator.c
> @@ -387,8 +387,11 @@ static int pfuze100_regulator_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
>  
>  	for (i = 0; i < PFUZE100_MAX_REGULATOR; i++) {
>  		struct regulator_init_data *init_data;
> +		struct regulator_desc *desc;
>  		int val;
>  
> +		desc = &pfuze_chip->regulator_descs[i].desc;
> +
>  		if (pdata)
>  			init_data = pdata->init_data[i];
>  		else
> @@ -396,13 +399,11 @@ static int pfuze100_regulator_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
>  
>  		/* SW2~SW4 high bit check and modify the voltage value table */
>  		if (i > PFUZE100_SW1C && i < PFUZE100_SWBST) {
> -			regmap_read(pfuze_chip->regmap, PFUZE100_SW2VOL +
> -					(i - PFUZE100_SW2) * 7, &val);
> +			regmap_read(pfuze_chip->regmap, desc->vsel_reg, &val);
>  			if (val & 0x40) {
> -				pfuze_chip->regulator_descs[i].desc.min_uV
> -				= 800000;
> -				pfuze_chip->regulator_descs[i].desc.uV_step
> -				= 50000;
> +				desc->min_uV = 800000;
> +				desc->uV_step = 50000;
> +				desc->n_voltages = 51;
>  			}
>  		}
>  
> @@ -411,8 +412,7 @@ static int pfuze100_regulator_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
>  		config.driver_data = pfuze_chip;
>  		config.of_node = match_of_node(i);
>  
> -		pfuze_chip->regulators[i] = regulator_register(&pfuze_chip
> -			->regulator_descs[i].desc, &config);
> +		pfuze_chip->regulators[i] = regulator_register(desc, &config);
>  		if (IS_ERR(pfuze_chip->regulators[i])) {
>  			dev_err(&client->dev, "register regulator%s failed\n",
>  				pfuze100_regulators[i].desc.name);
> -- 
> 1.8.1.2
> 
> 
> 
> 


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH RFT] regulator: pfuze100: Fix n_voltages setting for SW2~SW4 with high bit set
  2013-07-30  3:23 ` Robin Gong
@ 2013-07-30 10:21   ` Mark Brown
  2013-07-30 10:54     ` Robin Gong
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Mark Brown @ 2013-07-30 10:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Robin Gong; +Cc: Axel Lin, Liam Girdwood, linux-kernel

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 341 bytes --]

On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:23:11AM +0800, Robin Gong wrote:
> Ok for me.

For Linux kernel process you should say

   Acked-by: Robin Gong <b38343@freescale.com>

or

   Reviewed-by: Robin Gong <b38343@freescale.com>

to say if you are OK - the first means you didn't really review but it
looks OK, the second means you did a proper review.

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH RFT] regulator: pfuze100: Fix n_voltages setting for SW2~SW4 with high bit set
  2013-07-30  2:46 [PATCH RFT] regulator: pfuze100: Fix n_voltages setting for SW2~SW4 with high bit set Axel Lin
  2013-07-30  3:23 ` Robin Gong
@ 2013-07-30 10:21 ` Mark Brown
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Mark Brown @ 2013-07-30 10:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Axel Lin; +Cc: Robin Gong, Liam Girdwood, linux-kernel

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 164 bytes --]

On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:46:28AM +0800, Axel Lin wrote:
> Current code adjust min_uV and uV_step but missed adjusting the n_voltages
> setting.

Applied, thanks.

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH RFT] regulator: pfuze100: Fix n_voltages setting for SW2~SW4 with high bit set
  2013-07-30 10:21   ` Mark Brown
@ 2013-07-30 10:54     ` Robin Gong
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Robin Gong @ 2013-07-30 10:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Mark Brown; +Cc: Axel Lin, Liam Girdwood, linux-kernel

Hi Mark,
	Thanks for your kindly remind.

On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:21:10AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:23:11AM +0800, Robin Gong wrote:
> > Ok for me.
> 
> For Linux kernel process you should say
> 
>    Acked-by: Robin Gong <b38343@freescale.com>
> 
> or
> 
>    Reviewed-by: Robin Gong <b38343@freescale.com>
> 
> to say if you are OK - the first means you didn't really review but it
> looks OK, the second means you did a proper review.




^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2013-07-30 10:50 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2013-07-30  2:46 [PATCH RFT] regulator: pfuze100: Fix n_voltages setting for SW2~SW4 with high bit set Axel Lin
2013-07-30  3:23 ` Robin Gong
2013-07-30 10:21   ` Mark Brown
2013-07-30 10:54     ` Robin Gong
2013-07-30 10:21 ` Mark Brown

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox