Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756568Ab3GDLns (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Jul 2013 07:43:48 -0400 Received: from mail-ie0-f173.google.com ([209.85.223.173]:53688 "EHLO mail-ie0-f173.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752996Ab3GDLnr (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Jul 2013 07:43:47 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20130704092249.GK27646@sirena.org.uk> References: <1372072858-6559-1-git-send-email-yadi.brar@samsung.com> <1372072858-6559-4-git-send-email-yadi.brar@samsung.com> <20130703180511.GA374@sirena.org.uk> <20130704092249.GK27646@sirena.org.uk> Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2013 17:13:46 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] mfd: s2mps11: Add device tree support From: Yadwinder Singh Brar To: Mark Brown Cc: Yadwinder Singh Brar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sbkim73@samsung.com, Liam Girdwood , Samuel Ortiz , Rob Herring , Grant Likely Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1509 Lines: 42 On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Mark Brown 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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/