On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 04:48:03PM +0200, Bengt Jönsson wrote:
> Reverting 500b4ac90d1103 makes sense, but first I want to mention
> two things:
> 1. In some cases it is not even possible to know the actual current
> state of a regulator because it is controlled by HW as well as SW.
> We have sev
On 04/15/2013 04:11 PM, Axel Lin wrote:
2013/4/15 Bengt Jönsson :
On 04/15/2013 02:13 PM, Axel Lin wrote:
I guess what you don't like with the current approach is that the driver
returns REGULATOR_MODE_IDLE in some cases where the mode register is set
to
LP. But I think, with patch applied, the
2013/4/15 Bengt Jönsson :
> On 04/15/2013 02:13 PM, Axel Lin wrote:
>>>
>>> I guess what you don't like with the current approach is that the driver
>>> returns REGULATOR_MODE_IDLE in some cases where the mode register is set
>>> to
>>> LP. But I think, with patch applied, the control may be wrong
On 04/15/2013 02:13 PM, Axel Lin wrote:
I guess what you don't like with the current approach is that the driver
returns REGULATOR_MODE_IDLE in some cases where the mode register is set to
LP. But I think, with patch applied, the control may be wrong in some cases
because the regulator framework
> I guess what you don't like with the current approach is that the driver
> returns REGULATOR_MODE_IDLE in some cases where the mode register is set to
> LP. But I think, with patch applied, the control may be wrong in some cases
> because the regulator framework will call get_mode and see that th
On 04/15/2013 10:50 AM, Axel Lin wrote:
My understanding is for shared mode regulators:
It can be in LP mode only when *BOTH* are in LP mode.
If only one of the regulator in HP mode, then *BOTH* should be in HP mode.
Did I misunderstand something?
Your understanding is correct.
Let me put this
> My understanding is for shared mode regulators:
> It can be in LP mode only when *BOTH* are in LP mode.
> If only one of the regulator in HP mode, then *BOTH* should be in HP mode.
> Did I misunderstand something?
Let me put this issue this way:
Current code behavior:
get_mode() returns IDLE if
2013/4/15 Bengt Jönsson :
> On 04/08/2013 02:31 PM, Axel Lin wrote:
>>
>> The special handling code for getting shared mode status is wrong
>> because it needs to check info->shared_mode->lp_mode_req for
>> both regulators that shared the same mode register.
>>
>> In set_mode(), current code ensure
Hi Axel,
> Ping.
>
> Hi Lee,
> Can you review this patch.
> I think this one is a bug fix.
Bengt is the SME for all things ab*-regulator related.
No one knows the driver better than him.
Bengt, would you mind reviewing?
> 2013/4/8 Axel Lin :
> > The special handling code for getting shared mo
On 04/08/2013 02:31 PM, Axel Lin wrote:
The special handling code for getting shared mode status is wrong
because it needs to check info->shared_mode->lp_mode_req for
both regulators that shared the same mode register.
In set_mode(), current code ensures we won't set mode to REGULATOR_MODE_IDLE
Ping.
Hi Lee,
Can you review this patch.
I think this one is a bug fix.
Regards,
Axel
2013/4/8 Axel Lin :
> The special handling code for getting shared mode status is wrong
> because it needs to check info->shared_mode->lp_mode_req for
> both regulators that shared the same mode register.
>
> I
The special handling code for getting shared mode status is wrong
because it needs to check info->shared_mode->lp_mode_req for
both regulators that shared the same mode register.
In set_mode(), current code ensures we won't set mode to REGULATOR_MODE_IDLE
if only one of the regulator requests to s
12 matches
Mail list logo
