Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754112Ab2FSMU7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jun 2012 08:20:59 -0400 Received: from mail-gg0-f174.google.com ([209.85.161.174]:44564 "EHLO mail-gg0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752009Ab2FSMU6 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jun 2012 08:20:58 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: axel.lin@gmail.com In-Reply-To: References: <1340092423-10073-1-git-send-email-yadi.brar@samsung.com> <1340092423-10073-2-git-send-email-yadi.brar@samsung.com> From: Axel Lin Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 20:20:37 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] regulator: max77686: Implement .set_ramp_delay() callback. To: Yadwinder Singh Brar Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mark Brown , Liam Girdwood , Jonghwa Lee , Myungjoo Ham , Kyungmin Park , Chiwoong Byun , Yadwinder Singh Brar Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1761 Lines: 45 2012/6/19 Yadwinder Singh Brar : > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Axel Lin wrote: >>> ?static struct regulator_ops max77686_ops = { >>> ? ? ? ?.list_voltage ? ? ? ? ? = regulator_list_voltage_linear, >>> ? ? ? ?.map_voltage ? ? ? ? ? ?= regulator_map_voltage_linear, >>> @@ -90,6 +114,7 @@ static struct regulator_ops max77686_buck_dvs_ops = { > > ? ?^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>> ? ? ? ?.get_voltage_sel ? ? ? ?= regulator_get_voltage_sel_regmap, >>> ? ? ? ?.set_voltage_sel ? ? ? ?= regulator_set_voltage_sel_regmap, >>> ? ? ? ?.set_voltage_time_sel ? = regulator_set_voltage_time_sel, >>> + ? ? ? .set_ramp_delay ? ? ? ? = max77686_set_ramp_delay, >>> ?}; >> >> I think what you want here is to set .set_ramp_delay callback for >> max77686_buck_dvs_ops >> rather than max77686_ops. > > Now I have seen into my code after applying this patch again, yes its > set for ?max77686_buck_dvs_ops. > I also missed to catch this in patch... :) .. > Anyways, thanks for review and I think, we don't need to revise this patch. oh, sorry, my bad. Just try to apply your patch, I found + return regmap_update_bits(rdev->regmap, MAX77686_REG_BUCK2CTRL1 + + (rdev->desc->id - MAX77686_BUCK2) * 10, + MAX77686_RAMP_RATE_MASK, ramp_value << 6); can be simplified to: return regmap_update_bits(rdev->regmap, rdev->desc->enable_reg, ramp_value << 6); How do you think? Regards, Axel -- 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/