| Message ID | 1404846554-4095-1-git-send-email-balbi@ti.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 02:09:12PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote: > The second range of this particular regulator, > starts at 1.60V, not as 1.55V as it was originally > implied by code. Applied all, thanks. Please use subject lines consistent with the style for the subsystem - these even vary within the series!
diff --git a/drivers/regulator/tps65218-regulator.c b/drivers/regulator/tps65218-regulator.c index 9effe48..8b7a0a9 100644 --- a/drivers/regulator/tps65218-regulator.c +++ b/drivers/regulator/tps65218-regulator.c @@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ static const struct regulator_linear_range ldo1_dcdc3_ranges[] = { static const struct regulator_linear_range dcdc4_ranges[] = { REGULATOR_LINEAR_RANGE(1175000, 0x0, 0xf, 25000), - REGULATOR_LINEAR_RANGE(1550000, 0x10, 0x34, 50000), + REGULATOR_LINEAR_RANGE(1600000, 0x10, 0x34, 50000), }; static struct tps_info tps65218_pmic_regs[] = {
The second range of this particular regulator, starts at 1.60V, not as 1.55V as it was originally implied by code. Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com> --- based on datasheet only. Also boot tested on another, yet-to-be-released HW. A 50mV difference is probably not a big deal for any users of DCDC4 but it's still good to be correct. drivers/regulator/tps65218-regulator.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)