[PATCH] soc: mediatek: mediatek-regulator-coupler: Fix comment

[Fei Shao]

On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 8:03 PM Fei Shao <fshao at chromium.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 6:40 PM AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
> <angelogioacchino.delregno at collabora.com> wrote:
> >
> > Il 23/10/24 12:19, Fei Shao ha scritto:
> > > Fix two minor issues in the comments.
> > >
> > > 1. We balance VSRAM voltage based on the target VGPU voltage, so the
> > >     comment likely refers to VGPU.
> >
> > Function `mediatek_regulator_balance_voltage()` refers, as stated in the comment
> > located at the top of its signature, to "GPU<->SRAM" voltages relationships.
> >
> > So, we're taking into consideration only two regulators:
> >                    VGPU and VSRAM
> >
> > The first comment says:
> > "If we're asked to set a voltage (implicit: to VGPU) less than VSRAM min_uV[...]"
> >
> > ...so, I think that you've misunderstood what the comment says :-)
>
> Let me make sure we're on the same page - VGPU never goes higher than
> VSRAM (VGPU <= VSRAM), is that correct?
>
> [ min VGPU, max VGPU ] ... spread ... [    min VSRAM  ,  max VSRAM    ]
>  (min_uV)  (max_uV)                         (vsram_min_uV) (vsram_max_uV)
>
> The longer comment is
> "If we're asked to set a voltage less than VSRAM min_uV, set the
> minimum allowed voltage on VSRAM, ..."
> So VSRAM is the subject here I think? Because we "set voltage *on*
> VSRAM" based on its own minimum allowed voltage? We never set either
> VGPU min/max voltage to vsram_min_uV?
> And it's attached to the line that decides vsram_target_min_uV, with
> the maximum of (1) vsram_min_uV (i.e. minimum allowed VSRAM voltage)
> or (2) min_uV + max_spread (min VGPU + spread)

Ah, I just got your point. Both interpretations can explain..
I linked the "min_uV" in the comment to the one used in code, which
stands for VGPU min_uV, so I had the impression that it was a typo.

Regards,
Fei