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

2013-04-16 Thread Opensource [Anthony Olech] 
> -Original Message-
> From: Guenter Roeck [mailto:li...@roeck-us.net]
> Sent: 16 April 2013 14:36
> To: Opensource [Anthony Olech]
> Cc: LKML
> Subject: Re: [NEW DRIVER V4 7/7] DA9058 REGULATOR driver
> 
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 09:17:27AM +, Opensource [Anthony Olech]
> wrote:
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Guenter Roeck [mailto:li...@roeck-us.net]
> > > Sent: 15 April 2013 18:46
> > > To: Opensource [Anthony Olech]
> > > Cc: LKML
> > > Subject: Re: [NEW DRIVER V4 7/7] DA9058 REGULATOR driver
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 05:29:13PM +, Opensource [Anthony Olech]
> > > wrote:
> > > > > -Original Message-
> > > > > From: Guenter Roeck [mailto:li...@roeck-us.net]
> > > > > Sent: 15 April 2013 17:36
> > > > > To: Opensource [Anthony Olech]
> > > > > Cc: LKML
> > > > > Subject: Re: [NEW DRIVER V4 7/7] DA9058 REGULATOR driver
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 03:00:58PM +, Opensource [Anthony
> > > > > Olech]
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > -Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: Guenter Roeck [mailto:li...@roeck-us.net]
> > > > > > > Sent: 12 April 2013 14:32
> > > > > > > To: Opensource [Anthony Olech]
> > > > > > > Cc: Mark Brown; Liam Girdwood; Jean Delvare; Randy Dunlap;
> > > > > > > LKML; David Dajun Chen
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [NEW DRIVER V4 7/7] DA9058 REGULATOR driver
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 02:05:28PM +0100, Anthony Olech wrote:
> > > > > > > > This is the REGULATOR component driver of the Dialog DA9058
> PMIC.
> > > > > > > > This driver is just one component of the whole DA9058 PMIC
> driver.
> > > > > > > > It depends on the CORE component driver of the DA9058 MFD.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There are 6 warnings from scripts/checkpatch.pl, but since
> > > > > > > > it seems to be complaining about variable names such as
> > > > > > > > min_uV are in CamelCase, when it is obvious that they are
> > > > > > > > not in CamelCase I have
> > > > > ignored them.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ??? min_uV _is_ CamelCase ???
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ok, maybe it is camelcasE, but you are splitting hairs here.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > it is not me splitting hairs, it is scripts/checkpatch.pl
> > > > > >
> > > > > Maybe you did not understand what I meant. Per your logic,
> > > > >
> > > > >   MicroVolt is CamelCase
> > > > >   uVolt is ???
> > > > >   uV is not CamelCase
> > > > >
> > > > > By abbreviating CamelCase to camelCase to cC you make it, in
> > > > > your opinion, acceptable.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you want to declare CamelCase variables, just do it, but
> > > > > don't claim that they are not really CamelCase.
> > > > >
> > > > > Guenter
> > > >
> > > > I always thought that camel case meant "changing from lower case
> > > > to upper case the first letter of each word and then joining the
> > > > capitalized words together", so by that definition uV or mW are
> > > > not camel
> > > case because "v" and "w" are not words!
> >
> > The definition of CamelCase From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is:
> >
> > "CamelCase (camel case) is a term which refers to the practice of
> > writing compound words where the first letter of an identifier is
> > lowercase and the first letter of each subsequent concatenated word is
> capitalized."
> >
> Maybe the rule should read "don't mix lowercase and uppercase letters in
> variable names and defines" to prevent variable names such as cAmelcAse or
> cameLcasE, which would be permitted with your logic :).

It is really good to have a definition that anyone can work with!
 
> > > > Either way it seems that the algorithm in scripts/checkpatch.pl is
> > > > wrong! and
> > > that was my point.
> > >
> > > Guess we'll have to agree to disagree here, as I happen to think
> > > that checkpatch is perfectly right.
> > > Guenter
> >
> > Hi Guenter,
> >
> > I am quite happy to accept the algorithm in scripts/checkpatch.pl as
> > the arbiter for correctly formed linux kernel variable names.
> >
> > On that basis "old_mV", "new_uA" etc are incorrectly formed variable names.
> > Could you possibly suggest legal alternatives to "mA", "uV", "kW" ??
> >
> I just changed it to lowercase in the ntc_thermistor driver. What you use is
> really your call as long as it does not mix uppercase and lowercase letters.
> 
> Guenter

many thanks, I will do the same.

Tony Olech

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

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

2013-04-16 Thread Guenter Roeck 
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 09:17:27AM +, Opensource [Anthony Olech] wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Guenter Roeck [mailto:li...@roeck-us.net]
> > Sent: 15 April 2013 18:46
> > To: Opensource [Anthony Olech]
> > Cc: LKML
> > Subject: Re: [NEW DRIVER V4 7/7] DA9058 REGULATOR driver
> > 
> > On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 05:29:13PM +, Opensource [Anthony Olech]
> > wrote:
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Guenter Roeck [mailto:li...@roeck-us.net]
> > > > Sent: 15 April 2013 17:36
> > > > To: Opensource [Anthony Olech]
> > > > Cc: LKML
> > > > Subject: Re: [NEW DRIVER V4 7/7] DA9058 REGULATOR driver
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 03:00:58PM +, Opensource [Anthony Olech]
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > -Original Message-
> > > > > > From: Guenter Roeck [mailto:li...@roeck-us.net]
> > > > > > Sent: 12 April 2013 14:32
> > > > > > To: Opensource [Anthony Olech]
> > > > > > Cc: Mark Brown; Liam Girdwood; Jean Delvare; Randy Dunlap; LKML;
> > > > > > David Dajun Chen
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [NEW DRIVER V4 7/7] DA9058 REGULATOR driver
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 02:05:28PM +0100, Anthony Olech wrote:
> > > > > > > This is the REGULATOR component driver of the Dialog DA9058 PMIC.
> > > > > > > This driver is just one component of the whole DA9058 PMIC driver.
> > > > > > > It depends on the CORE component driver of the DA9058 MFD.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There are 6 warnings from scripts/checkpatch.pl, but since it
> > > > > > > seems to be complaining about variable names such as min_uV
> > > > > > > are in CamelCase, when it is obvious that they are not in
> > > > > > > CamelCase I have
> > > > ignored them.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > ??? min_uV _is_ CamelCase ???
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ok, maybe it is camelcasE, but you are splitting hairs here.
> > > > >
> > > > > it is not me splitting hairs, it is scripts/checkpatch.pl
> > > > >
> > > > Maybe you did not understand what I meant. Per your logic,
> > > >
> > > > MicroVolt is CamelCase
> > > > uVolt is ???
> > > > uV is not CamelCase
> > > >
> > > > By abbreviating CamelCase to camelCase to cC you make it, in your
> > > > opinion, acceptable.
> > > >
> > > > If you want to declare CamelCase variables, just do it, but don't
> > > > claim that they are not really CamelCase.
> > > >
> > > > Guenter
> > >
> > > I always thought that camel case meant "changing from lower case to
> > > upper case the first letter of each word and then joining the
> > > capitalized words together", so by that definition uV or mW are not camel
> > case because "v" and "w" are not words!
> 
> The definition of CamelCase From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is:
> 
> "CamelCase (camel case) is a term which refers to the practice of writing
> compound words where the first letter of an identifier is lowercase and the
> first letter of each subsequent concatenated word is capitalized."
> 
Maybe the rule should read "don't mix lowercase and uppercase letters in
variable names and defines" to prevent variable names such as cAmelcAse or
cameLcasE, which would be permitted with your logic :).

> > > Either way it seems that the algorithm in scripts/checkpatch.pl is wrong! 
> > > and
> > that was my point.
> >
> > Guess we'll have to agree to disagree here, as I happen to think that
> > checkpatch is perfectly right.
> > Guenter
> 
> Hi Guenter,
> 
> I am quite happy to accept the algorithm in scripts/checkpatch.pl as the
> arbiter for correctly formed linux kernel variable names.
> 
> On that basis "old_mV", "new_uA" etc are incorrectly formed variable names.
> Could you possibly suggest legal alternatives to "mA", "uV", "kW" ??
> 
I just changed it to lowercase in the ntc_thermistor driver. What you use is
really your call as long as it does not mix uppercase and lowercase letters.

Guenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

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

2013-04-16 Thread Opensource [Anthony Olech] 
> -Original Message-
> From: Mark Brown [mailto:broo...@kernel.org]
> Sent: 12 April 2013 14:27
> To: Opensource [Anthony Olech]
> Cc: Liam Girdwood; Guenter Roeck; Jean Delvare; Randy Dunlap; LKML; David
> Dajun Chen
> Subject: Re: [NEW DRIVER V4 7/7] DA9058 REGULATOR driver
> 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

I will resubmit later after re-testing, fixing the 3 points you raised in this 
driver.

> Acked-by: Mark Brown 
> Please use subject lines reflecting the subsystem.

I assume you mean "regulator" for drivers in "drivers/regulator",
"misc" for drivers in "drivers/input/misc" etc etc ??

> > +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...

Yes, I did not notice that the generic regmap operation 
"reulator_set_voltage_sel_regmap()"
supports a trigger/go. I will change to using it.
 
> > +   rdev = regulator_register(>desc, );
> > +
> > +   if (IS_ERR(rdev)) {
> > +   dev_err(>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.

Yes, I will include the value of "ret" in the dev_err message

Tony Olech
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

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

2013-04-16 Thread Opensource [Anthony Olech] 
> -Original Message-
> From: Guenter Roeck [mailto:li...@roeck-us.net]
> Sent: 15 April 2013 18:46
> To: Opensource [Anthony Olech]
> Cc: LKML
> Subject: Re: [NEW DRIVER V4 7/7] DA9058 REGULATOR driver
> 
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 05:29:13PM +, Opensource [Anthony Olech]
> wrote:
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Guenter Roeck [mailto:li...@roeck-us.net]
> > > Sent: 15 April 2013 17:36
> > > To: Opensource [Anthony Olech]
> > > Cc: LKML
> > > Subject: Re: [NEW DRIVER V4 7/7] DA9058 REGULATOR driver
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 03:00:58PM +, Opensource [Anthony Olech]
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -Original Message-
> > > > > From: Guenter Roeck [mailto:li...@roeck-us.net]
> > > > > Sent: 12 April 2013 14:32
> > > > > To: Opensource [Anthony Olech]
> > > > > Cc: Mark Brown; Liam Girdwood; Jean Delvare; Randy Dunlap; LKML;
> > > > > David Dajun Chen
> > > > > Subject: Re: [NEW DRIVER V4 7/7] DA9058 REGULATOR driver
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 02:05:28PM +0100, Anthony Olech wrote:
> > > > > > This is the REGULATOR component driver of the Dialog DA9058 PMIC.
> > > > > > This driver is just one component of the whole DA9058 PMIC driver.
> > > > > > It depends on the CORE component driver of the DA9058 MFD.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are 6 warnings from scripts/checkpatch.pl, but since it
> > > > > > seems to be complaining about variable names such as min_uV
> > > > > > are in CamelCase, when it is obvious that they are not in
> > > > > > CamelCase I have
> > > ignored them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > ??? min_uV _is_ CamelCase ???
> > > > >
> > > > > Ok, maybe it is camelcasE, but you are splitting hairs here.
> > > >
> > > > it is not me splitting hairs, it is scripts/checkpatch.pl
> > > >
> > > Maybe you did not understand what I meant. Per your logic,
> > >
> > >   MicroVolt is CamelCase
> > >   uVolt is ???
> > >   uV is not CamelCase
> > >
> > > By abbreviating CamelCase to camelCase to cC you make it, in your
> > > opinion, acceptable.
> > >
> > > If you want to declare CamelCase variables, just do it, but don't
> > > claim that they are not really CamelCase.
> > >
> > > Guenter
> >
> > I always thought that camel case meant "changing from lower case to
> > upper case the first letter of each word and then joining the
> > capitalized words together", so by that definition uV or mW are not camel
> case because "v" and "w" are not words!

The definition of CamelCase From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is:

"CamelCase (camel case) is a term which refers to the practice of writing
compound words where the first letter of an identifier is lowercase and the
first letter of each subsequent concatenated word is capitalized."

> > Either way it seems that the algorithm in scripts/checkpatch.pl is wrong! 
> > and
> that was my point.
>
> Guess we'll have to agree to disagree here, as I happen to think that
> checkpatch is perfectly right.
> Guenter

Hi Guenter,

I am quite happy to accept the algorithm in scripts/checkpatch.pl as the
arbiter for correctly formed linux kernel variable names.

On that basis "old_mV", "new_uA" etc are incorrectly formed variable names.
Could you possibly suggest legal alternatives to "mA", "uV", "kW" ??

Tony Olech


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

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

2013-04-16 Thread Opensource [Anthony Olech] 
 -Original Message-
 From: Guenter Roeck [mailto:li...@roeck-us.net]
 Sent: 15 April 2013 18:46
 To: Opensource [Anthony Olech]
 Cc: LKML
 Subject: Re: [NEW DRIVER V4 7/7] DA9058 REGULATOR driver
 
 On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 05:29:13PM +, Opensource [Anthony Olech]
 wrote:
   -Original Message-
   From: Guenter Roeck [mailto:li...@roeck-us.net]
   Sent: 15 April 2013 17:36
   To: Opensource [Anthony Olech]
   Cc: LKML
   Subject: Re: [NEW DRIVER V4 7/7] DA9058 REGULATOR driver
  
   On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 03:00:58PM +, Opensource [Anthony Olech]
   wrote:
   
   
 -Original Message-
 From: Guenter Roeck [mailto:li...@roeck-us.net]
 Sent: 12 April 2013 14:32
 To: Opensource [Anthony Olech]
 Cc: Mark Brown; Liam Girdwood; Jean Delvare; Randy Dunlap; LKML;
 David Dajun Chen
 Subject: Re: [NEW DRIVER V4 7/7] DA9058 REGULATOR driver

 On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 02:05:28PM +0100, Anthony Olech wrote:
  This is the REGULATOR component driver of the Dialog DA9058 PMIC.
  This driver is just one component of the whole DA9058 PMIC driver.
  It depends on the CORE component driver of the DA9058 MFD.
 
  There are 6 warnings from scripts/checkpatch.pl, but since it
  seems to be complaining about variable names such as min_uV
  are in CamelCase, when it is obvious that they are not in
  CamelCase I have
   ignored them.
 
 ??? min_uV _is_ CamelCase ???

 Ok, maybe it is camelcasE, but you are splitting hairs here.
   
it is not me splitting hairs, it is scripts/checkpatch.pl
   
   Maybe you did not understand what I meant. Per your logic,
  
 MicroVolt is CamelCase
 uVolt is ???
 uV is not CamelCase
  
   By abbreviating CamelCase to camelCase to cC you make it, in your
   opinion, acceptable.
  
   If you want to declare CamelCase variables, just do it, but don't
   claim that they are not really CamelCase.
  
   Guenter
 
  I always thought that camel case meant changing from lower case to
  upper case the first letter of each word and then joining the
  capitalized words together, so by that definition uV or mW are not camel
 case because v and w are not words!

The definition of CamelCase From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is:

CamelCase (camel case) is a term which refers to the practice of writing
compound words where the first letter of an identifier is lowercase and the
first letter of each subsequent concatenated word is capitalized.

  Either way it seems that the algorithm in scripts/checkpatch.pl is wrong! 
  and
 that was my point.

 Guess we'll have to agree to disagree here, as I happen to think that
 checkpatch is perfectly right.
 Guenter

Hi Guenter,

I am quite happy to accept the algorithm in scripts/checkpatch.pl as the
arbiter for correctly formed linux kernel variable names.

On that basis old_mV, new_uA etc are incorrectly formed variable names.
Could you possibly suggest legal alternatives to mA, uV, kW ??

Tony Olech


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

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

2013-04-16 Thread Opensource [Anthony Olech] 
 -Original Message-
 From: Mark Brown [mailto:broo...@kernel.org]
 Sent: 12 April 2013 14:27
 To: Opensource [Anthony Olech]
 Cc: Liam Girdwood; Guenter Roeck; Jean Delvare; Randy Dunlap; LKML; David
 Dajun Chen
 Subject: Re: [NEW DRIVER V4 7/7] DA9058 REGULATOR driver
 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

I will resubmit later after re-testing, fixing the 3 points you raised in this 
driver.

 Acked-by: Mark Brown broo...@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com
 Please use subject lines reflecting the subsystem.

I assume you mean regulator for drivers in drivers/regulator,
misc for drivers in drivers/input/misc etc etc ??

  +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...

Yes, I did not notice that the generic regmap operation 
reulator_set_voltage_sel_regmap()
supports a trigger/go. I will change to using it.
 
  +   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.

Yes, I will include the value of ret in the dev_err message

Tony Olech
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

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

2013-04-16 Thread Guenter Roeck 
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 09:17:27AM +, Opensource [Anthony Olech] wrote:
  -Original Message-
  From: Guenter Roeck [mailto:li...@roeck-us.net]
  Sent: 15 April 2013 18:46
  To: Opensource [Anthony Olech]
  Cc: LKML
  Subject: Re: [NEW DRIVER V4 7/7] DA9058 REGULATOR driver
  
  On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 05:29:13PM +, Opensource [Anthony Olech]
  wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Guenter Roeck [mailto:li...@roeck-us.net]
Sent: 15 April 2013 17:36
To: Opensource [Anthony Olech]
Cc: LKML
Subject: Re: [NEW DRIVER V4 7/7] DA9058 REGULATOR driver
   
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 03:00:58PM +, Opensource [Anthony Olech]
wrote:


  -Original Message-
  From: Guenter Roeck [mailto:li...@roeck-us.net]
  Sent: 12 April 2013 14:32
  To: Opensource [Anthony Olech]
  Cc: Mark Brown; Liam Girdwood; Jean Delvare; Randy Dunlap; LKML;
  David Dajun Chen
  Subject: Re: [NEW DRIVER V4 7/7] DA9058 REGULATOR driver
 
  On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 02:05:28PM +0100, Anthony Olech wrote:
   This is the REGULATOR component driver of the Dialog DA9058 PMIC.
   This driver is just one component of the whole DA9058 PMIC driver.
   It depends on the CORE component driver of the DA9058 MFD.
  
   There are 6 warnings from scripts/checkpatch.pl, but since it
   seems to be complaining about variable names such as min_uV
   are in CamelCase, when it is obvious that they are not in
   CamelCase I have
ignored them.
  
  ??? min_uV _is_ CamelCase ???
 
  Ok, maybe it is camelcasE, but you are splitting hairs here.

 it is not me splitting hairs, it is scripts/checkpatch.pl

Maybe you did not understand what I meant. Per your logic,
   
MicroVolt is CamelCase
uVolt is ???
uV is not CamelCase
   
By abbreviating CamelCase to camelCase to cC you make it, in your
opinion, acceptable.
   
If you want to declare CamelCase variables, just do it, but don't
claim that they are not really CamelCase.
   
Guenter
  
   I always thought that camel case meant changing from lower case to
   upper case the first letter of each word and then joining the
   capitalized words together, so by that definition uV or mW are not camel
  case because v and w are not words!
 
 The definition of CamelCase From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is:
 
 CamelCase (camel case) is a term which refers to the practice of writing
 compound words where the first letter of an identifier is lowercase and the
 first letter of each subsequent concatenated word is capitalized.
 
Maybe the rule should read don't mix lowercase and uppercase letters in
variable names and defines to prevent variable names such as cAmelcAse or
cameLcasE, which would be permitted with your logic :).

   Either way it seems that the algorithm in scripts/checkpatch.pl is wrong! 
   and
  that was my point.
 
  Guess we'll have to agree to disagree here, as I happen to think that
  checkpatch is perfectly right.
  Guenter
 
 Hi Guenter,
 
 I am quite happy to accept the algorithm in scripts/checkpatch.pl as the
 arbiter for correctly formed linux kernel variable names.
 
 On that basis old_mV, new_uA etc are incorrectly formed variable names.
 Could you possibly suggest legal alternatives to mA, uV, kW ??
 
I just changed it to lowercase in the ntc_thermistor driver. What you use is
really your call as long as it does not mix uppercase and lowercase letters.

Guenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

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

2013-04-16 Thread Opensource [Anthony Olech] 
 -Original Message-
 From: Guenter Roeck [mailto:li...@roeck-us.net]
 Sent: 16 April 2013 14:36
 To: Opensource [Anthony Olech]
 Cc: LKML
 Subject: Re: [NEW DRIVER V4 7/7] DA9058 REGULATOR driver
 
 On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 09:17:27AM +, Opensource [Anthony Olech]
 wrote:
   -Original Message-
   From: Guenter Roeck [mailto:li...@roeck-us.net]
   Sent: 15 April 2013 18:46
   To: Opensource [Anthony Olech]
   Cc: LKML
   Subject: Re: [NEW DRIVER V4 7/7] DA9058 REGULATOR driver
  
   On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 05:29:13PM +, Opensource [Anthony Olech]
   wrote:
 -Original Message-
 From: Guenter Roeck [mailto:li...@roeck-us.net]
 Sent: 15 April 2013 17:36
 To: Opensource [Anthony Olech]
 Cc: LKML
 Subject: Re: [NEW DRIVER V4 7/7] DA9058 REGULATOR driver

 On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 03:00:58PM +, Opensource [Anthony
 Olech]
 wrote:
 
 
   -Original Message-
   From: Guenter Roeck [mailto:li...@roeck-us.net]
   Sent: 12 April 2013 14:32
   To: Opensource [Anthony Olech]
   Cc: Mark Brown; Liam Girdwood; Jean Delvare; Randy Dunlap;
   LKML; David Dajun Chen
   Subject: Re: [NEW DRIVER V4 7/7] DA9058 REGULATOR driver
  
   On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 02:05:28PM +0100, Anthony Olech wrote:
This is the REGULATOR component driver of the Dialog DA9058
 PMIC.
This driver is just one component of the whole DA9058 PMIC
 driver.
It depends on the CORE component driver of the DA9058 MFD.
   
There are 6 warnings from scripts/checkpatch.pl, but since
it seems to be complaining about variable names such as
min_uV are in CamelCase, when it is obvious that they are
not in CamelCase I have
 ignored them.
   
   ??? min_uV _is_ CamelCase ???
  
   Ok, maybe it is camelcasE, but you are splitting hairs here.
 
  it is not me splitting hairs, it is scripts/checkpatch.pl
 
 Maybe you did not understand what I meant. Per your logic,

   MicroVolt is CamelCase
   uVolt is ???
   uV is not CamelCase

 By abbreviating CamelCase to camelCase to cC you make it, in
 your opinion, acceptable.

 If you want to declare CamelCase variables, just do it, but
 don't claim that they are not really CamelCase.

 Guenter
   
I always thought that camel case meant changing from lower case
to upper case the first letter of each word and then joining the
capitalized words together, so by that definition uV or mW are
not camel
   case because v and w are not words!
 
  The definition of CamelCase From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is:
 
  CamelCase (camel case) is a term which refers to the practice of
  writing compound words where the first letter of an identifier is
  lowercase and the first letter of each subsequent concatenated word is
 capitalized.
 
 Maybe the rule should read don't mix lowercase and uppercase letters in
 variable names and defines to prevent variable names such as cAmelcAse or
 cameLcasE, which would be permitted with your logic :).

It is really good to have a definition that anyone can work with!
 
Either way it seems that the algorithm in scripts/checkpatch.pl is
wrong! and
   that was my point.
  
   Guess we'll have to agree to disagree here, as I happen to think
   that checkpatch is perfectly right.
   Guenter
 
  Hi Guenter,
 
  I am quite happy to accept the algorithm in scripts/checkpatch.pl as
  the arbiter for correctly formed linux kernel variable names.
 
  On that basis old_mV, new_uA etc are incorrectly formed variable names.
  Could you possibly suggest legal alternatives to mA, uV, kW ??
 
 I just changed it to lowercase in the ntc_thermistor driver. What you use is
 really your call as long as it does not mix uppercase and lowercase letters.
 
 Guenter

many thanks, I will do the same.

Tony Olech

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

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

2013-04-15 Thread Guenter Roeck 
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 05:29:13PM +, Opensource [Anthony Olech] wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Guenter Roeck [mailto:li...@roeck-us.net]
> > Sent: 15 April 2013 17:36
> > To: Opensource [Anthony Olech]
> > Cc: LKML
> > Subject: Re: [NEW DRIVER V4 7/7] DA9058 REGULATOR driver
> > 
> > On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 03:00:58PM +, Opensource [Anthony Olech]
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Guenter Roeck [mailto:li...@roeck-us.net]
> > > > Sent: 12 April 2013 14:32
> > > > To: Opensource [Anthony Olech]
> > > > Cc: Mark Brown; Liam Girdwood; Jean Delvare; Randy Dunlap; LKML;
> > > > David Dajun Chen
> > > > Subject: Re: [NEW DRIVER V4 7/7] DA9058 REGULATOR driver
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 02:05:28PM +0100, Anthony Olech wrote:
> > > > > This is the REGULATOR component driver of the Dialog DA9058 PMIC.
> > > > > This driver is just one component of the whole DA9058 PMIC driver.
> > > > > It depends on the CORE component driver of the DA9058 MFD.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are 6 warnings from scripts/checkpatch.pl, but since it
> > > > > seems to be complaining about variable names such as min_uV are in
> > > > > CamelCase, when it is obvious that they are not in CamelCase I have
> > ignored them.
> > > > >
> > > > ??? min_uV _is_ CamelCase ???
> > > >
> > > > Ok, maybe it is camelcasE, but you are splitting hairs here.
> > >
> > > it is not me splitting hairs, it is scripts/checkpatch.pl
> > >
> > Maybe you did not understand what I meant. Per your logic,
> > 
> > MicroVolt is CamelCase
> > uVolt is ???
> > uV is not CamelCase
> > 
> > By abbreviating CamelCase to camelCase to cC you make it, in your opinion,
> > acceptable.
> > 
> > If you want to declare CamelCase variables, just do it, but don't claim 
> > that they
> > are not really CamelCase.
> > 
> > Guenter
> 
> I always thought that camel case meant "changing from lower case to upper 
> case the first 
> letter of each word and then joining the capitalized words together", so by 
> that definition
> uV or mW are not camel case because "v" and "w" are not words!
> 
> Either way it seems that the algorithm in scripts/checkpatch.pl is wrong! and 
> that was my point.
> 
Guess we'll have to agree to disagree here, as I happen to think that checkpatch
is perfectly right.

Guenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

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

2013-04-15 Thread Opensource [Anthony Olech] 
> -Original Message-
> From: Guenter Roeck [mailto:li...@roeck-us.net]
> Sent: 15 April 2013 17:36
> To: Opensource [Anthony Olech]
> Cc: LKML
> Subject: Re: [NEW DRIVER V4 7/7] DA9058 REGULATOR driver
> 
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 03:00:58PM +, Opensource [Anthony Olech]
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Guenter Roeck [mailto:li...@roeck-us.net]
> > > Sent: 12 April 2013 14:32
> > > To: Opensource [Anthony Olech]
> > > Cc: Mark Brown; Liam Girdwood; Jean Delvare; Randy Dunlap; LKML;
> > > David Dajun Chen
> > > Subject: Re: [NEW DRIVER V4 7/7] DA9058 REGULATOR driver
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 02:05:28PM +0100, Anthony Olech wrote:
> > > > This is the REGULATOR component driver of the Dialog DA9058 PMIC.
> > > > This driver is just one component of the whole DA9058 PMIC driver.
> > > > It depends on the CORE component driver of the DA9058 MFD.
> > > >
> > > > There are 6 warnings from scripts/checkpatch.pl, but since it
> > > > seems to be complaining about variable names such as min_uV are in
> > > > CamelCase, when it is obvious that they are not in CamelCase I have
> ignored them.
> > > >
> > > ??? min_uV _is_ CamelCase ???
> > >
> > > Ok, maybe it is camelcasE, but you are splitting hairs here.
> >
> > it is not me splitting hairs, it is scripts/checkpatch.pl
> >
> Maybe you did not understand what I meant. Per your logic,
> 
>   MicroVolt is CamelCase
>   uVolt is ???
>   uV is not CamelCase
> 
> By abbreviating CamelCase to camelCase to cC you make it, in your opinion,
> acceptable.
> 
> If you want to declare CamelCase variables, just do it, but don't claim that 
> they
> are not really CamelCase.
> 
> Guenter

I always thought that camel case meant "changing from lower case to upper case 
the first 
letter of each word and then joining the capitalized words together", so by 
that definition
uV or mW are not camel case because "v" and "w" are not words!

Either way it seems that the algorithm in scripts/checkpatch.pl is wrong! and 
that was my point.

Tony Olech

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

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

2013-04-15 Thread Guenter Roeck 
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 03:00:58PM +, Opensource [Anthony Olech] wrote:
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Guenter Roeck [mailto:li...@roeck-us.net]
> > Sent: 12 April 2013 14:32
> > To: Opensource [Anthony Olech]
> > Cc: Mark Brown; Liam Girdwood; Jean Delvare; Randy Dunlap; LKML; David
> > Dajun Chen
> > Subject: Re: [NEW DRIVER V4 7/7] DA9058 REGULATOR driver
> > 
> > On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 02:05:28PM +0100, Anthony Olech wrote:
> > > This is the REGULATOR component driver of the Dialog DA9058 PMIC.
> > > This driver is just one component of the whole DA9058 PMIC driver.
> > > It depends on the CORE component driver of the DA9058 MFD.
> > >
> > > There are 6 warnings from scripts/checkpatch.pl, but since it seems to
> > > be complaining about variable names such as min_uV are in CamelCase,
> > > when it is obvious that they are not in CamelCase I have ignored them.
> > >
> > ??? min_uV _is_ CamelCase ???
> > 
> > Ok, maybe it is camelcasE, but you are splitting hairs here.
> 
> it is not me splitting hairs, it is scripts/checkpatch.pl
> 
Maybe you did not understand what I meant. Per your logic,

MicroVolt is CamelCase
uVolt is ???
uV is not CamelCase

By abbreviating CamelCase to camelCase to cC you make it,
in your opinion, acceptable.

If you want to declare CamelCase variables, just do it,
but don't claim that they are not really CamelCase.

Guenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

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

2013-04-15 Thread Opensource [Anthony Olech] 


> -Original Message-
> From: Guenter Roeck [mailto:li...@roeck-us.net]
> Sent: 12 April 2013 14:32
> To: Opensource [Anthony Olech]
> Cc: Mark Brown; Liam Girdwood; Jean Delvare; Randy Dunlap; LKML; David
> Dajun Chen
> Subject: Re: [NEW DRIVER V4 7/7] DA9058 REGULATOR driver
> 
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 02:05:28PM +0100, Anthony Olech wrote:
> > This is the REGULATOR component driver of the Dialog DA9058 PMIC.
> > This driver is just one component of the whole DA9058 PMIC driver.
> > It depends on the CORE component driver of the DA9058 MFD.
> >
> > There are 6 warnings from scripts/checkpatch.pl, but since it seems to
> > be complaining about variable names such as min_uV are in CamelCase,
> > when it is obvious that they are not in CamelCase I have ignored them.
> >
> ??? min_uV _is_ CamelCase ???
> 
> Ok, maybe it is camelcasE, but you are splitting hairs here.

it is not me splitting hairs, it is scripts/checkpatch.pl

Tony Olech

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

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

2013-04-15 Thread Opensource [Anthony Olech] 


 -Original Message-
 From: Guenter Roeck [mailto:li...@roeck-us.net]
 Sent: 12 April 2013 14:32
 To: Opensource [Anthony Olech]
 Cc: Mark Brown; Liam Girdwood; Jean Delvare; Randy Dunlap; LKML; David
 Dajun Chen
 Subject: Re: [NEW DRIVER V4 7/7] DA9058 REGULATOR driver
 
 On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 02:05:28PM +0100, Anthony Olech wrote:
  This is the REGULATOR component driver of the Dialog DA9058 PMIC.
  This driver is just one component of the whole DA9058 PMIC driver.
  It depends on the CORE component driver of the DA9058 MFD.
 
  There are 6 warnings from scripts/checkpatch.pl, but since it seems to
  be complaining about variable names such as min_uV are in CamelCase,
  when it is obvious that they are not in CamelCase I have ignored them.
 
 ??? min_uV _is_ CamelCase ???
 
 Ok, maybe it is camelcasE, but you are splitting hairs here.

it is not me splitting hairs, it is scripts/checkpatch.pl

Tony Olech

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

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

2013-04-15 Thread Guenter Roeck 
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 03:00:58PM +, Opensource [Anthony Olech] wrote:
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: Guenter Roeck [mailto:li...@roeck-us.net]
  Sent: 12 April 2013 14:32
  To: Opensource [Anthony Olech]
  Cc: Mark Brown; Liam Girdwood; Jean Delvare; Randy Dunlap; LKML; David
  Dajun Chen
  Subject: Re: [NEW DRIVER V4 7/7] DA9058 REGULATOR driver
  
  On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 02:05:28PM +0100, Anthony Olech wrote:
   This is the REGULATOR component driver of the Dialog DA9058 PMIC.
   This driver is just one component of the whole DA9058 PMIC driver.
   It depends on the CORE component driver of the DA9058 MFD.
  
   There are 6 warnings from scripts/checkpatch.pl, but since it seems to
   be complaining about variable names such as min_uV are in CamelCase,
   when it is obvious that they are not in CamelCase I have ignored them.
  
  ??? min_uV _is_ CamelCase ???
  
  Ok, maybe it is camelcasE, but you are splitting hairs here.
 
 it is not me splitting hairs, it is scripts/checkpatch.pl
 
Maybe you did not understand what I meant. Per your logic,

MicroVolt is CamelCase
uVolt is ???
uV is not CamelCase

By abbreviating CamelCase to camelCase to cC you make it,
in your opinion, acceptable.

If you want to declare CamelCase variables, just do it,
but don't claim that they are not really CamelCase.

Guenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

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

2013-04-15 Thread Opensource [Anthony Olech] 
 -Original Message-
 From: Guenter Roeck [mailto:li...@roeck-us.net]
 Sent: 15 April 2013 17:36
 To: Opensource [Anthony Olech]
 Cc: LKML
 Subject: Re: [NEW DRIVER V4 7/7] DA9058 REGULATOR driver
 
 On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 03:00:58PM +, Opensource [Anthony Olech]
 wrote:
 
 
   -Original Message-
   From: Guenter Roeck [mailto:li...@roeck-us.net]
   Sent: 12 April 2013 14:32
   To: Opensource [Anthony Olech]
   Cc: Mark Brown; Liam Girdwood; Jean Delvare; Randy Dunlap; LKML;
   David Dajun Chen
   Subject: Re: [NEW DRIVER V4 7/7] DA9058 REGULATOR driver
  
   On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 02:05:28PM +0100, Anthony Olech wrote:
This is the REGULATOR component driver of the Dialog DA9058 PMIC.
This driver is just one component of the whole DA9058 PMIC driver.
It depends on the CORE component driver of the DA9058 MFD.
   
There are 6 warnings from scripts/checkpatch.pl, but since it
seems to be complaining about variable names such as min_uV are in
CamelCase, when it is obvious that they are not in CamelCase I have
 ignored them.
   
   ??? min_uV _is_ CamelCase ???
  
   Ok, maybe it is camelcasE, but you are splitting hairs here.
 
  it is not me splitting hairs, it is scripts/checkpatch.pl
 
 Maybe you did not understand what I meant. Per your logic,
 
   MicroVolt is CamelCase
   uVolt is ???
   uV is not CamelCase
 
 By abbreviating CamelCase to camelCase to cC you make it, in your opinion,
 acceptable.
 
 If you want to declare CamelCase variables, just do it, but don't claim that 
 they
 are not really CamelCase.
 
 Guenter

I always thought that camel case meant changing from lower case to upper case 
the first 
letter of each word and then joining the capitalized words together, so by 
that definition
uV or mW are not camel case because v and w are not words!

Either way it seems that the algorithm in scripts/checkpatch.pl is wrong! and 
that was my point.

Tony Olech

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

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

2013-04-15 Thread Guenter Roeck 
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 05:29:13PM +, Opensource [Anthony Olech] wrote:
  -Original Message-
  From: Guenter Roeck [mailto:li...@roeck-us.net]
  Sent: 15 April 2013 17:36
  To: Opensource [Anthony Olech]
  Cc: LKML
  Subject: Re: [NEW DRIVER V4 7/7] DA9058 REGULATOR driver
  
  On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 03:00:58PM +, Opensource [Anthony Olech]
  wrote:
  
  
-Original Message-
From: Guenter Roeck [mailto:li...@roeck-us.net]
Sent: 12 April 2013 14:32
To: Opensource [Anthony Olech]
Cc: Mark Brown; Liam Girdwood; Jean Delvare; Randy Dunlap; LKML;
David Dajun Chen
Subject: Re: [NEW DRIVER V4 7/7] DA9058 REGULATOR driver
   
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 02:05:28PM +0100, Anthony Olech wrote:
 This is the REGULATOR component driver of the Dialog DA9058 PMIC.
 This driver is just one component of the whole DA9058 PMIC driver.
 It depends on the CORE component driver of the DA9058 MFD.

 There are 6 warnings from scripts/checkpatch.pl, but since it
 seems to be complaining about variable names such as min_uV are in
 CamelCase, when it is obvious that they are not in CamelCase I have
  ignored them.

??? min_uV _is_ CamelCase ???
   
Ok, maybe it is camelcasE, but you are splitting hairs here.
  
   it is not me splitting hairs, it is scripts/checkpatch.pl
  
  Maybe you did not understand what I meant. Per your logic,
  
  MicroVolt is CamelCase
  uVolt is ???
  uV is not CamelCase
  
  By abbreviating CamelCase to camelCase to cC you make it, in your opinion,
  acceptable.
  
  If you want to declare CamelCase variables, just do it, but don't claim 
  that they
  are not really CamelCase.
  
  Guenter
 
 I always thought that camel case meant changing from lower case to upper 
 case the first 
 letter of each word and then joining the capitalized words together, so by 
 that definition
 uV or mW are not camel case because v and w are not words!
 
 Either way it seems that the algorithm in scripts/checkpatch.pl is wrong! and 
 that was my point.
 
Guess we'll have to agree to disagree here, as I happen to think that checkpatch
is perfectly right.

Guenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

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

2013-04-12 Thread Guenter Roeck 
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 02:05:28PM +0100, Anthony Olech wrote:
> This is the REGULATOR component driver of the Dialog DA9058 PMIC.
> This driver is just one component of the whole DA9058 PMIC driver.
> It depends on the CORE component driver of the DA9058 MFD.
> 
> There are 6 warnings from scripts/checkpatch.pl, but since it seems to
> be complaining about variable names such as min_uV are in CamelCase,
> when it is obvious that they are not in CamelCase I have ignored them.
> 
??? min_uV _is_ CamelCase ???

Ok, maybe it is camelcasE, but you are splitting hairs here.

Guenter

> Signed-off-by: Anthony Olech 
> Signed-off-by: David Dajun Chen 
> ---
>  drivers/regulator/Kconfig|   11 ++
>  drivers/regulator/Makefile   |1 +
>  drivers/regulator/da9058-regulator.c |  228 
> ++
>  3 files changed, 240 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 drivers/regulator/da9058-regulator.c
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/regulator/Kconfig b/drivers/regulator/Kconfig
> index a5d97ea..3b7b098 100644
> --- a/drivers/regulator/Kconfig
> +++ b/drivers/regulator/Kconfig
> @@ -64,6 +64,17 @@ config REGULATOR_USERSPACE_CONSUMER
>  
> If unsure, say no.
>  
> +config REGULATOR_DA9058
> + tristate "Support regulators on Dialog Semiconductor DA9058 PMIC"
> + depends on MFD_DA9058
> + help
> +   Say y here to support the BUCKs and LDOs regulators found on
> +   Dialog Semiconductor DA9058 PMIC.
> +
> +   This driver can also be built as a module. If so, the module
> +   will be called da9058-regulator.
> +
> +
>  config REGULATOR_GPIO
>   tristate "GPIO regulator support"
>   depends on GENERIC_GPIO
> diff --git a/drivers/regulator/Makefile b/drivers/regulator/Makefile
> index 6e82503..f8e1784 100644
> --- a/drivers/regulator/Makefile
> +++ b/drivers/regulator/Makefile
> @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_REGULATOR_DB8500_PRCMU) += db8500-prcmu.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_REGULATOR_FAN53555) += fan53555.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_REGULATOR_GPIO) += gpio-regulator.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_REGULATOR_ISL6271A) += isl6271a-regulator.o
> +obj-$(CONFIG_REGULATOR_DA9058) += da9058-regulator.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_REGULATOR_LP3971) += lp3971.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_REGULATOR_LP3972) += lp3972.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_REGULATOR_LP872X) += lp872x.o
> diff --git a/drivers/regulator/da9058-regulator.c 
> b/drivers/regulator/da9058-regulator.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000..a033364
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/regulator/da9058-regulator.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,228 @@
> +/*
> + *  Copyright (C) 2012 Dialog Semiconductor Ltd.
> + *
> + *  This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> + *  it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> + *  the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
> + *  (at your option) any later version.
> + *
> + */
> +
> +#include 
> +#include 
> +#include 
> +#include 
> +#include 
> +#include 
> +
> +#include 
> +#include 
> +#include 
> +#include 
> +
> +struct da9058_regulator {
> + struct da9058 *da9058;
> + int ramp_register;
> + int ramp_enable_mask;
> + struct platform_device *pdev;
> + struct regulator_dev *reg_dev;
> + struct regulator_desc desc;
> + struct regulator_init_data init;
> +};
> +
> +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*/
> +}
> +
> +static struct regulator_ops da9058_buck_regulator_ops = {
> + .map_voltage = regulator_map_voltage_linear,
> + .list_voltage = regulator_list_voltage_linear,
> + .set_voltage_time_sel = da9058_buck_ramp_voltage,
> + .get_voltage_sel = regulator_get_voltage_sel_regmap,
> + .set_voltage_sel = regulator_set_voltage_sel_regmap,
> + .enable = regulator_enable_regmap,
> + .disable = regulator_disable_regmap,
> + .is_enabled = regulator_is_enabled_regmap,
> +};
> +
> +static struct regulator_ops da9058_ldo_regulator_ops = {
> + .map_voltage = regulator_map_voltage_linear,
> + .list_voltage = regulator_list_voltage_linear,
> + .get_voltage_sel = regulator_get_voltage_sel_regmap,
> + .set_voltage_sel = regulator_set_voltage_sel_regmap,
> + .enable = regulator_enable_regmap,
> + .disable = regulator_disable_regmap,
> + .is_enabled = regulator_is_enabled_regmap,
> +};
> +
>

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

2013-04-12 Thread 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 

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(>desc, );
> +
> + if (IS_ERR(rdev)) {
> + dev_err(>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.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

[NEW DRIVER V4 7/7] DA9058 REGULATOR driver

2013-04-12 Thread Anthony Olech 
This is the REGULATOR component driver of the Dialog DA9058 PMIC.
This driver is just one component of the whole DA9058 PMIC driver.
It depends on the CORE component driver of the DA9058 MFD.

There are 6 warnings from scripts/checkpatch.pl, but since it seems to
be complaining about variable names such as min_uV are in CamelCase,
when it is obvious that they are not in CamelCase I have ignored them.

Signed-off-by: Anthony Olech 
Signed-off-by: David Dajun Chen 
---
 drivers/regulator/Kconfig|   11 ++
 drivers/regulator/Makefile   |1 +
 drivers/regulator/da9058-regulator.c |  228 ++
 3 files changed, 240 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 drivers/regulator/da9058-regulator.c

diff --git a/drivers/regulator/Kconfig b/drivers/regulator/Kconfig
index a5d97ea..3b7b098 100644
--- a/drivers/regulator/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/regulator/Kconfig
@@ -64,6 +64,17 @@ config REGULATOR_USERSPACE_CONSUMER
 
  If unsure, say no.
 
+config REGULATOR_DA9058
+   tristate "Support regulators on Dialog Semiconductor DA9058 PMIC"
+   depends on MFD_DA9058
+   help
+ Say y here to support the BUCKs and LDOs regulators found on
+ Dialog Semiconductor DA9058 PMIC.
+
+ This driver can also be built as a module. If so, the module
+ will be called da9058-regulator.
+
+
 config REGULATOR_GPIO
tristate "GPIO regulator support"
depends on GENERIC_GPIO
diff --git a/drivers/regulator/Makefile b/drivers/regulator/Makefile
index 6e82503..f8e1784 100644
--- a/drivers/regulator/Makefile
+++ b/drivers/regulator/Makefile
@@ -25,6 +25,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_REGULATOR_DB8500_PRCMU) += db8500-prcmu.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_REGULATOR_FAN53555) += fan53555.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_REGULATOR_GPIO) += gpio-regulator.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_REGULATOR_ISL6271A) += isl6271a-regulator.o
+obj-$(CONFIG_REGULATOR_DA9058) += da9058-regulator.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_REGULATOR_LP3971) += lp3971.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_REGULATOR_LP3972) += lp3972.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_REGULATOR_LP872X) += lp872x.o
diff --git a/drivers/regulator/da9058-regulator.c 
b/drivers/regulator/da9058-regulator.c
new file mode 100644
index 000..a033364
--- /dev/null
+++ b/drivers/regulator/da9058-regulator.c
@@ -0,0 +1,228 @@
+/*
+ *  Copyright (C) 2012 Dialog Semiconductor Ltd.
+ *
+ *  This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
+ *  it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
+ *  the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
+ *  (at your option) any later version.
+ *
+ */
+
+#include 
+#include 
+#include 
+#include 
+#include 
+#include 
+
+#include 
+#include 
+#include 
+#include 
+
+struct da9058_regulator {
+   struct da9058 *da9058;
+   int ramp_register;
+   int ramp_enable_mask;
+   struct platform_device *pdev;
+   struct regulator_dev *reg_dev;
+   struct regulator_desc desc;
+   struct regulator_init_data init;
+};
+
+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*/
+}
+
+static struct regulator_ops da9058_buck_regulator_ops = {
+   .map_voltage = regulator_map_voltage_linear,
+   .list_voltage = regulator_list_voltage_linear,
+   .set_voltage_time_sel = da9058_buck_ramp_voltage,
+   .get_voltage_sel = regulator_get_voltage_sel_regmap,
+   .set_voltage_sel = regulator_set_voltage_sel_regmap,
+   .enable = regulator_enable_regmap,
+   .disable = regulator_disable_regmap,
+   .is_enabled = regulator_is_enabled_regmap,
+};
+
+static struct regulator_ops da9058_ldo_regulator_ops = {
+   .map_voltage = regulator_map_voltage_linear,
+   .list_voltage = regulator_list_voltage_linear,
+   .get_voltage_sel = regulator_get_voltage_sel_regmap,
+   .set_voltage_sel = regulator_set_voltage_sel_regmap,
+   .enable = regulator_enable_regmap,
+   .disable = regulator_disable_regmap,
+   .is_enabled = regulator_is_enabled_regmap,
+};
+
+static int da9058_regulator_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
+{
+   struct da9058 *da9058 = dev_get_drvdata(pdev->dev.parent);
+   const struct mfd_cell *cell = mfd_get_cell(pdev);
+   struct da9058_regulator_pdata *rpdata;
+   struct da9058_regulator *reg;
+   struct regulator_dev *rdev;
+   struct regulator_config

[NEW DRIVER V4 7/7] DA9058 REGULATOR driver

2013-04-12 Thread Anthony Olech 
This is the REGULATOR component driver of the Dialog DA9058 PMIC.
This driver is just one component of the whole DA9058 PMIC driver.
It depends on the CORE component driver of the DA9058 MFD.

There are 6 warnings from scripts/checkpatch.pl, but since it seems to
be complaining about variable names such as min_uV are in CamelCase,
when it is obvious that they are not in CamelCase I have ignored them.

Signed-off-by: Anthony Olech anthony.olech.opensou...@diasemi.com
Signed-off-by: David Dajun Chen david.c...@diasemi.com
---
 drivers/regulator/Kconfig|   11 ++
 drivers/regulator/Makefile   |1 +
 drivers/regulator/da9058-regulator.c |  228 ++
 3 files changed, 240 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 drivers/regulator/da9058-regulator.c

diff --git a/drivers/regulator/Kconfig b/drivers/regulator/Kconfig
index a5d97ea..3b7b098 100644
--- a/drivers/regulator/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/regulator/Kconfig
@@ -64,6 +64,17 @@ config REGULATOR_USERSPACE_CONSUMER
 
  If unsure, say no.
 
+config REGULATOR_DA9058
+   tristate Support regulators on Dialog Semiconductor DA9058 PMIC
+   depends on MFD_DA9058
+   help
+ Say y here to support the BUCKs and LDOs regulators found on
+ Dialog Semiconductor DA9058 PMIC.
+
+ This driver can also be built as a module. If so, the module
+ will be called da9058-regulator.
+
+
 config REGULATOR_GPIO
tristate GPIO regulator support
depends on GENERIC_GPIO
diff --git a/drivers/regulator/Makefile b/drivers/regulator/Makefile
index 6e82503..f8e1784 100644
--- a/drivers/regulator/Makefile
+++ b/drivers/regulator/Makefile
@@ -25,6 +25,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_REGULATOR_DB8500_PRCMU) += db8500-prcmu.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_REGULATOR_FAN53555) += fan53555.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_REGULATOR_GPIO) += gpio-regulator.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_REGULATOR_ISL6271A) += isl6271a-regulator.o
+obj-$(CONFIG_REGULATOR_DA9058) += da9058-regulator.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_REGULATOR_LP3971) += lp3971.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_REGULATOR_LP3972) += lp3972.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_REGULATOR_LP872X) += lp872x.o
diff --git a/drivers/regulator/da9058-regulator.c 
b/drivers/regulator/da9058-regulator.c
new file mode 100644
index 000..a033364
--- /dev/null
+++ b/drivers/regulator/da9058-regulator.c
@@ -0,0 +1,228 @@
+/*
+ *  Copyright (C) 2012 Dialog Semiconductor Ltd.
+ *
+ *  This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
+ *  it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
+ *  the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
+ *  (at your option) any later version.
+ *
+ */
+
+#include linux/module.h
+#include linux/err.h
+#include linux/regulator/machine.h
+#include linux/regulator/driver.h
+#include linux/regmap.h
+#include linux/mfd/core.h
+
+#include linux/mfd/da9058/version.h
+#include linux/mfd/da9058/registers.h
+#include linux/mfd/da9058/core.h
+#include linux/mfd/da9058/regulator.h
+
+struct da9058_regulator {
+   struct da9058 *da9058;
+   int ramp_register;
+   int ramp_enable_mask;
+   struct platform_device *pdev;
+   struct regulator_dev *reg_dev;
+   struct regulator_desc desc;
+   struct regulator_init_data init;
+};
+
+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*/
+}
+
+static struct regulator_ops da9058_buck_regulator_ops = {
+   .map_voltage = regulator_map_voltage_linear,
+   .list_voltage = regulator_list_voltage_linear,
+   .set_voltage_time_sel = da9058_buck_ramp_voltage,
+   .get_voltage_sel = regulator_get_voltage_sel_regmap,
+   .set_voltage_sel = regulator_set_voltage_sel_regmap,
+   .enable = regulator_enable_regmap,
+   .disable = regulator_disable_regmap,
+   .is_enabled = regulator_is_enabled_regmap,
+};
+
+static struct regulator_ops da9058_ldo_regulator_ops = {
+   .map_voltage = regulator_map_voltage_linear,
+   .list_voltage = regulator_list_voltage_linear,
+   .get_voltage_sel = regulator_get_voltage_sel_regmap,
+   .set_voltage_sel = regulator_set_voltage_sel_regmap,
+   .enable = regulator_enable_regmap,
+   .disable = regulator_disable_regmap,
+   .is_enabled = regulator_is_enabled_regmap,
+};
+
+static int da9058_regulator_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
+{
+   struct

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

2013-04-12 Thread 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 broo...@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com

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.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

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

2013-04-12 Thread Guenter Roeck 
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 02:05:28PM +0100, Anthony Olech wrote:
 This is the REGULATOR component driver of the Dialog DA9058 PMIC.
 This driver is just one component of the whole DA9058 PMIC driver.
 It depends on the CORE component driver of the DA9058 MFD.
 
 There are 6 warnings from scripts/checkpatch.pl, but since it seems to
 be complaining about variable names such as min_uV are in CamelCase,
 when it is obvious that they are not in CamelCase I have ignored them.
 
??? min_uV _is_ CamelCase ???

Ok, maybe it is camelcasE, but you are splitting hairs here.

Guenter

 Signed-off-by: Anthony Olech anthony.olech.opensou...@diasemi.com
 Signed-off-by: David Dajun Chen david.c...@diasemi.com
 ---
  drivers/regulator/Kconfig|   11 ++
  drivers/regulator/Makefile   |1 +
  drivers/regulator/da9058-regulator.c |  228 
 ++
  3 files changed, 240 insertions(+)
  create mode 100644 drivers/regulator/da9058-regulator.c
 
 diff --git a/drivers/regulator/Kconfig b/drivers/regulator/Kconfig
 index a5d97ea..3b7b098 100644
 --- a/drivers/regulator/Kconfig
 +++ b/drivers/regulator/Kconfig
 @@ -64,6 +64,17 @@ config REGULATOR_USERSPACE_CONSUMER
  
 If unsure, say no.
  
 +config REGULATOR_DA9058
 + tristate Support regulators on Dialog Semiconductor DA9058 PMIC
 + depends on MFD_DA9058
 + help
 +   Say y here to support the BUCKs and LDOs regulators found on
 +   Dialog Semiconductor DA9058 PMIC.
 +
 +   This driver can also be built as a module. If so, the module
 +   will be called da9058-regulator.
 +
 +
  config REGULATOR_GPIO
   tristate GPIO regulator support
   depends on GENERIC_GPIO
 diff --git a/drivers/regulator/Makefile b/drivers/regulator/Makefile
 index 6e82503..f8e1784 100644
 --- a/drivers/regulator/Makefile
 +++ b/drivers/regulator/Makefile
 @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_REGULATOR_DB8500_PRCMU) += db8500-prcmu.o
  obj-$(CONFIG_REGULATOR_FAN53555) += fan53555.o
  obj-$(CONFIG_REGULATOR_GPIO) += gpio-regulator.o
  obj-$(CONFIG_REGULATOR_ISL6271A) += isl6271a-regulator.o
 +obj-$(CONFIG_REGULATOR_DA9058) += da9058-regulator.o
  obj-$(CONFIG_REGULATOR_LP3971) += lp3971.o
  obj-$(CONFIG_REGULATOR_LP3972) += lp3972.o
  obj-$(CONFIG_REGULATOR_LP872X) += lp872x.o
 diff --git a/drivers/regulator/da9058-regulator.c 
 b/drivers/regulator/da9058-regulator.c
 new file mode 100644
 index 000..a033364
 --- /dev/null
 +++ b/drivers/regulator/da9058-regulator.c
 @@ -0,0 +1,228 @@
 +/*
 + *  Copyright (C) 2012 Dialog Semiconductor Ltd.
 + *
 + *  This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
 + *  it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
 + *  the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
 + *  (at your option) any later version.
 + *
 + */
 +
 +#include linux/module.h
 +#include linux/err.h
 +#include linux/regulator/machine.h
 +#include linux/regulator/driver.h
 +#include linux/regmap.h
 +#include linux/mfd/core.h
 +
 +#include linux/mfd/da9058/version.h
 +#include linux/mfd/da9058/registers.h
 +#include linux/mfd/da9058/core.h
 +#include linux/mfd/da9058/regulator.h
 +
 +struct da9058_regulator {
 + struct da9058 *da9058;
 + int ramp_register;
 + int ramp_enable_mask;
 + struct platform_device *pdev;
 + struct regulator_dev *reg_dev;
 + struct regulator_desc desc;
 + struct regulator_init_data init;
 +};
 +
 +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*/
 +}
 +
 +static struct regulator_ops da9058_buck_regulator_ops = {
 + .map_voltage = regulator_map_voltage_linear,
 + .list_voltage = regulator_list_voltage_linear,
 + .set_voltage_time_sel = da9058_buck_ramp_voltage,
 + .get_voltage_sel = regulator_get_voltage_sel_regmap,
 + .set_voltage_sel = regulator_set_voltage_sel_regmap,
 + .enable = regulator_enable_regmap,
 + .disable = regulator_disable_regmap,
 + .is_enabled = regulator_is_enabled_regmap,
 +};
 +
 +static struct regulator_ops da9058_ldo_regulator_ops = {
 + .map_voltage = regulator_map_voltage_linear,
 + .list_voltage = regulator_list_voltage_linear,
 + .get_voltage_sel = regulator_get_voltage_sel_regmap,
 + .set_voltage_sel = regulator_set_voltage_sel_regmap,
 + .enable =