Re: [PATCH 2/2] regulator: core: Ensure we are at least in bounds for our constraints

From: Bjorn Andersson
Date: Mon Mar 28 2016 - 12:16:21 EST

On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 2:08 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 04:50:41PM -0700, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
>> Reinstating the following snippet in of_get_regulation_constraints()
>> sort this out:
>> if (constraints->min_uV && constraints->max_uV)
>> constraints->apply_uV = true;
> The existing check in the patch should be an || not an ==, or possibly
> we should just not bother looking for min_uV at all. I just pushed out
> a version of that, let's see how that goes.

Either way is fine with me, as long as we either go ahead and apply a
voltage setting now or allow a consumer to do so later (your posted
patch does both).

>> I did look at an alternative of having regulator_set_voltage() pass
>> and call set_voltage() if the requested voltage matches the
>> constraints, but this does indeed seem to mess things up. So checking
>> in with you before continuing on that hack.
> Yes, not everything is writeable.

Right, looking at your posted patch [1] we're changing this logic so
that normal regulators defined with min == max will be allowed to
set_voltage(). Thinking about it that makes sense and cleans the logic
up, so I'm in favor of this.

I know it's published, but fwiw you have my Acked-by on the posted patch.