Re: [PATCH] regulator: da903x: add support for DA9030 BUCK2 withDVM

[Eric Miao]

Mike Rapoport wrote:
> 
> Liam Girdwood wrote:
>> On Sun, 2009-07-26 at 10:54 +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
>>> Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/regulator/da903x.c |   17 ++++++++++++-----
>>>  1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/regulator/da903x.c b/drivers/regulator/da903x.c
>>> index b8b89ef..fab755d 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/regulator/da903x.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/regulator/da903x.c
>>> @@ -367,24 +367,24 @@ static struct regulator_ops da9034_regulator_ldo12_ops = {
>>>  	.enable_bit	= (ebit),					\
>>>  }
>>>  
>> Looks fine but did not apply :-
>>
>> Applying: regulator: da903x: add support for DA9030 BUCK2 with DVM
>> error: patch failed: drivers/regulator/da903x.c:367
>> error: drivers/regulator/da903x.c: patch does not apply
>> Patch failed at 0001 regulator: da903x: add support for DA9030 BUCK2 with DVM
>>
>> Could you regenerate against the regulator tree for-next branch.
>>
>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lrg/voltage-2.6.git
> 
> It seems I'm getting senile. The BUCK2 is already supported, moreover I've acked
> the patch.
> The only thing left to do is to consolidate DA903[045]_DVC macros:
> 

Mmm.... this looks a bit zigzag, and making the definition of DA90x_DVC()
too long (> 80 chars?), that's why it was originally written so.

DA9035 is actually very similar to DA9034 that doesn't even deserve a separate
name for (it does have a significant change in the analog frontend - but that's
out of AP control), so I basically don't bother invent a DA9035_DVC().

I have to admit that defining both DA9030_DVC() and DA9034_DVC() is a bit
redundant, but keeps the code in a little bit better shape.

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