Re: [NEW DRIVER V4 7/7] DA9058 REGULATOR driver

[Mark Brown]

On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 02:05:28PM +0100, Anthony Olech wrote:

This looks good, I assume there's some dependencies on the MFD or other
earlier patches so I won't apply it, let me know if there aren't any and
I will:

Acked-by: Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Please use subject lines reflecting the subsystem.

> +static int da9058_buck_ramp_voltage(struct regulator_dev *rdev,
> +					unsigned int old_selector,
> +					unsigned int new_selector)
> +{
> +	struct da9058_regulator *regulator = rdev_get_drvdata(rdev);
> +	struct da9058 *da9058 = regulator->da9058;
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	if (regulator->ramp_register == 0)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	if (regulator->ramp_enable_mask == 0)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	ret = da9058_set_bits(da9058, regulator->ramp_register,
> +					regulator->ramp_enable_mask);
> +
> +	if (ret)
> +		return ret;
> +
> +	return 2200; /* micro Seconds needed to ramp to new voltage*/
> +}

Hrm, this really should be implementable with a generic regmap
operation...

> +	rdev = regulator_register(&reg->desc, &config);
> +
> +	if (IS_ERR(rdev)) {
> +		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to register %s\n",
> +			rpdata->regulator_name);
> +		ret = PTR_ERR(rdev);
> +		goto failed_to_register;
> +	}

In general it's a bit better style to print out the return value to help
with diagnosis but it's no big deal.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature