On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Sachin Kamat <[email protected]> wrote: > On 24 June 2013 16:50, Yadwinder Singh Brar <[email protected]> wrote: >> Currently driver uses local struct s2mps11_info to store ramp rate for bucks >> whic its getting through platform data, so instead of using regulator >> constraints it should use s2mps11_info to calculate ramp delay. >> >> Signed-off-by: Yadwinder Singh Brar <[email protected]> > [snip] >> + >> + switch (rdev->desc->id) { >> + case S2MPS11_BUCK2: >> + if (!s2mps11->buck2_ramp) >> + return 0; >> + ramp_delay = s2mps11->ramp_delay2; >> + break; >> + case S2MPS11_BUCK3: >> + if (!s2mps11->buck3_ramp) >> + return 0; >> + ramp_delay = s2mps11->ramp_delay34; >> + break; >> + case S2MPS11_BUCK4: >> + if (!s2mps11->buck4_ramp) >> + return 0; >> + ramp_delay = s2mps11->ramp_delay34; >> + break; >> + case S2MPS11_BUCK5: >> + ramp_delay = s2mps11->ramp_delay5; >> + break; >> + case S2MPS11_BUCK6: >> + if (!s2mps11->buck6_ramp) >> + return 0; >> + case S2MPS11_BUCK1: > > nit: Why not have this at the beginning? >
Nothing special. Instead of putting "case S2MPS11_BUCK6" at beginning, I preferred to put S2MPS11_BUCK1 here. >> + ramp_delay = s2mps11->ramp_delay16; >> + break; >> + case S2MPS11_BUCK7: >> + case S2MPS11_BUCK8: >> + case S2MPS11_BUCK10: >> + ramp_delay = s2mps11->ramp_delay7810; >> + break; >> + case S2MPS11_BUCK9: >> + ramp_delay = s2mps11->ramp_delay9; >> + } > > How about adding a break statement above? > hmm .. I can't see any worth of it. Is it required according to linux coding convention ? Regards, Yadwinder -- > With warm regards, > Sachin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
