Re: [PATCH 3/4] mfd: s2mps11: Add device tree support

[Yadwinder Singh Brar]

On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 10:37:30AM +0530, Yadwinder Singh Brar wrote:
>
>> -  Currently ramp-delay (= 0) if not defined in DT, leaves the
>> hardware with default
>
> That's just an issue in the code if that is the case, you can test for
> the presence of a property independently of getting its value.
>

Yes, for that we will need an extra flag (ramp_disable) in
constraints, to figure out whether
ramp-rate is actually set to zero or its left (by default) zero if we
do it in common code as
now we have locally in driver.

>> - As ramp time is inversely propositional to ramp-rate(i.e. ramp-delay ,
>> its wrongly named, my mistake :( ) so it may look weired to use ramp-rate =0
>> as no ramp(ramp_time = 0).
>
> I think it's fairly obvious what's going on there, it fits in with the
> general pattern that a lower number is faster too.
>

yes, lower number(ramp_time) is faster, but I meant to say that lower
ramp-rate means higher ramp_time.

I think its matter of assumption, so to conclude our discussion,
please let me know that which approach we should use:
- assume "regulator-ramp-delay = <0>" as ramp_disable.
or
- parsing "regulator_ramp_disable" from DT.



Regards,
Yadwinder
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/