On 27 October 2016 at 19:52, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote:
> Hi Keethy,
>
> On 26 October 2016 at 20:20, Keerthy <j-keer...@ti.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday 26 October 2016 10:01 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Keerthy,
>>>
>>> On 26 October 2016 at 01:12, Keerthy <j-keer...@ti.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Currently the specific set ops functions are directly
>>>> called without any check for min/max current limits for a regulator.
>>>> Check for them and proceed.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Keerthy <j-keer...@ti.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/power/regulator/regulator-uclass.c | 5 +++++
>>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/power/regulator/regulator-uclass.c
>>>> b/drivers/power/regulator/regulator-uclass.c
>>>> index 34087c8..4c4bd29 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/power/regulator/regulator-uclass.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/power/regulator/regulator-uclass.c
>>>> @@ -80,6 +80,11 @@ int regulator_get_current(struct udevice *dev)
>>>> int regulator_set_current(struct udevice *dev, int uA)
>>>> {
>>>> const struct dm_regulator_ops *ops = dev_get_driver_ops(dev);
>>>> + struct dm_regulator_uclass_platdata *uc_pdata;
>>>> +
>>>> + uc_pdata = dev_get_uclass_platdata(dev);
>>>> + if (uA < uc_pdata->min_uA || uA > uc_pdata->max_uA)
>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>
>>>
>>> Do all drivers have these values set?
>>
>> Simon,
>>
>> Agree that not all drivers set this. But when someone calls set_current with
>> some value there needs to be some boundary conditions for this right? Hence
>> i made this patch.
>>
>
> I think your patch is good. I'm just worried about breaking boards.
> Can you take a quick look at existing users and make sure that won't
> happen?
This seems OK in my testing, so:
Applied to u-boot-rockchip, thanks!
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
