On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Mark Brown <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
