For linear mappings, we can use below equation to get the voltage difference
between new_selector and old_selector:
abs(new_selector - old_selector) * rdev->desc->uV_step
Signed-off-by: Axel Lin <[email protected]>
---
drivers/regulator/tps62360-regulator.c | 13 +++----------
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/regulator/tps62360-regulator.c b/drivers/regulator/tps62360-regulator.c
index e534269..d044a58 100644
--- a/drivers/regulator/tps62360-regulator.c
+++ b/drivers/regulator/tps62360-regulator.c
@@ -179,17 +179,10 @@ static int tps62360_set_voltage_time_sel(struct regulator_dev *rdev,
unsigned int old_selector, unsigned int new_selector)
{
struct tps62360_chip *tps = rdev_get_drvdata(rdev);
- int old_uV, new_uV;
- old_uV = regulator_list_voltage_linear(rdev, old_selector);
- if (old_uV < 0)
- return old_uV;
-
- new_uV = regulator_list_voltage_linear(rdev, new_selector);
- if (new_uV < 0)
- return new_uV;
-
- return DIV_ROUND_UP(abs(old_uV - new_uV), tps->change_uv_per_us);
+ return DIV_ROUND_UP(abs(new_selector - old_selector) *
+ rdev->desc->uV_step,
+ tps->change_uv_per_us);
}
static int tps62360_set_mode(struct regulator_dev *rdev, unsigned int mode)
--
1.7.9.5
On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 02:35:32PM +0800, Axel Lin wrote:
> For linear mappings, we can use below equation to get the voltage difference
> between new_selector and old_selector:
Applied, thanks. There's a new framework feature that Yadwinder Singh
has contributed which should allow this to be moved to the regulator
desc.
2012/6/18 Mark Brown <[email protected]>:
> On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 02:35:32PM +0800, Axel Lin wrote:
>> For linear mappings, we can use below equation to get the voltage difference
>> between new_selector and old_selector:
>
> Applied, thanks. ?There's a new framework feature that Yadwinder Singh
> has contributed which should allow this to be moved to the regulator
> desc.
In this case, tps->change_uv_per_us is is calculated by :
tps->change_uv_per_us = DIV_ROUND_UP(32000, BIT(ramp_ctrl));
Which means tps->change_uv_per_us may be not alignment to mV.
This make me think if we should change the unit of ramp_delay
to uV/uS rather than mV/uS. So we can avoid truncate issue.
Regards,
Axel
On Monday 18 June 2012 10:49 AM, Axel Lin wrote:
> 2012/6/18 Mark Brown<[email protected]>:
>> On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 02:35:32PM +0800, Axel Lin wrote:
>>
> This make me think if we should change the unit of ramp_delay
> to uV/uS rather than mV/uS. So we can avoid truncate issue.
>
Yes, we should have the ramp delay in uV/uS. many times, the ramp delay
come as 0.025mV/uS which will not be possible if we do mv/us.