On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 05:58:25PM +0100, Pawel Moll wrote:

On Wed, 2012-09-19 at 03:21 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:

quoted

No, we should provide a way to describe this situation in the API - it's
not unreasonable and having to pick step sizes is obviously suboptimal.

Actually before I finally got this mail (our mail system was playing
stupid today), I came up with idea of using the power supply specified
tolerance as a base to chose the step sizes. This comes down to such
code (with the regulator_*_voltage_linear in the ops):

That's probably OK, though check that the numbers come out sensible
(people tend to work to nice round numbers).

+       if (ret < 0) {
+               /* No operating points defined, allow any value within range */
+               struct regulation_constraints *constraints =
+                               regulator->rdev->constraints;
+
+               return min_uV >= constraints->min_uV &&
+                               max_uV <= constraints->max_uV;
+       }

I'd rather have the driver explicitly say it supports continuous
voltages with a flag in the descriptor (to make sure we don't end up
being overly optimistic because the driver wasn't well implemented) but
other than that this looks good.