On 01/09/2025 17:58, Frieder Schrempf wrote:
Hi Andrew,
Am 01.09.25 um 18:26 schrieb Andrew Goodbody:
On 27/08/2025 08:54, Frieder Schrempf wrote:
Am 07.08.25 um 18:35 schrieb Andrew Goodbody:
The code in tps65910_regulator.c treats the field supply in struct
tps65910_regulator_pdata as an int and even tests the value for being
negative so change it from a u32 to int so that the code all works as
expected.
I'm not sure if this is the best solution. The supply field holds a
voltage value in uV and u32 seems like a reasonable type to use.
I would argue that the driver should be changed to not use int and
remove the negative value check.
Hi Frieder,
I would offer the counter argument that the TPS65910 has an absolute
maximum rating of 7V so any advantage of being able to use all 32 bits
vs 'only' 31 bits to hold a value in uV, when 23 bits would be enough,
is somewhat lost.
As I say in the commit message all the rest of the code in this driver
treats this field as an int and declares int variables to hold its value
so using a u32 throughout this driver would just mean changes being made
with no benefit. Removing the negative value check leaves the code open
to unexpected behaviour and hard to find bugs.
More than that the field is being assigned to from the function
regulator_get_value() which is in the regulator uclass and returns an
int. So following your suggestion to its logical conclusion would mean
changing the uclass and then that would lead to changes also being made
to all other clients. This would turn into a major project which I am
not very keen to take on as I do not see any benefit to it.
So yes, simply changing one field in a struct from u32 to int does seem
to me to be the best solution. It achieves the aim of fixing the code
with the minimum of effort and I see no downside to it.
Thanks for the reply. I totally missed the fact that
regulator_get_value() returns an int. When I was looking at the code, I
assumed that there are only positive values ever used.
You are right. Sorry for the noise. The patch is fine.
Reviewed-by: Frieder Schrempf <[email protected]>
Thanks
Frieder
This patch is still showing as 'Changes requested' in Patchwork but I am
not sure why. Should I change its state or should I leave that to
someone else?
Thanks,
Andrew
