mfd: wm5110: Add register patch for rev D chip
Subsystems (2)
PATCH v2 1/1 mfd: wm5110: Add register patch for rev D chip
Evaluation of revision D of WM5110 suggests updates to the register patch for optimal performance. For the sake of clarity rev C of the chip does not require a register patch.
Signed-off-by Charles Keepax <[email protected]>
---
Updated the commit message to give a little more info on what the register patch is for.
As regards add #defines for the silicon revisions I am not sure it adds a significant amount of extra clarity, is "case
A: case B:" really a lot clearer than "case 0: case 1:" but that said I am happy to do a patch for this if we feel strongly about it? Although I would suggest it should be seperate from this patch.
Thanks,
Charles
drivers/mfd/wm5110-tables.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- 1 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
drivers/mfd/wm5110-tables.c +29 -1
@@ -223,6 +223,31 @@ static const struct reg_default wm5110_revb_patch[] = { { 0x80, 0x0 }, }; +static const struct reg_default wm5110_revd_patch[] = { + {0x80 ,0x3 }, + {0x80 ,0x3 }, + {0x393 ,0x27 }, + {0x394 ,0x27 }, + {0x395 ,0x27 }, + {0x396 ,0x27 }, + {0x397 ,0x27 }, + {0x398 ,0x26 }, + {0x221 ,0x90 }, + {0x211 ,0x8 }, + {0x36c ,0x1fb }, + {0x26e ,0x64 }, + {0x26f ,0xea }, + {0x270 ,0x1f16 }, + {0x51b ,0x1 }, + {0x55b ,0x1 }, + {0x59b ,0x1 }, + {0x4f0 ,0x633 }, + {0x441 ,0xc059 }, + {0x209 ,0x27 }, + {0x80 ,0x0 }, + {0x80 ,0x0 }, +}; +/* We use a function so we can use ARRAY_SIZE() */ int wm5110_patch (struct arizona *arizona) {
@@ -235,7 +260,10 @@ int wm5110_patch(struct arizona *arizona)return regmap_register_patch (arizona->regmap, wm5110_revb_patch,ARRAY_SIZE (wm5110_revb_patch)); - +case 3 : +return regmap_register_patch (arizona->regmap, + wm5110_revd_patch, +ARRAY_SIZE (wm5110_revd_patch));default :return 0 ; }
Signature · 1 line
1.7.2.5