| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 08:54:54 -0500 From: Nishanth Menon <nm@...com> To: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@...dia.com> CC: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>, Keerthy <j-keerthy@...com>, Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>, "linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: Palmas regulator broken (was Re: [PATCH] ARM: tegra: TN7: relax some regulators) On 08:23-20140620, Nishanth Menon wrote: > + l-o, > http://marc.info/?t=140316427500004&r=1&w=2 full thread > > Minor change in subject to indicate palmas regulator fail > > On 18:49-20140620, Alexandre Courbot wrote: > > On 06/20/2014 06:41 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > > >* PGP Signed by an unknown key > > > > > >On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 03:44:46PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote: > > > > > >>dbabd624d > > >>regulator: palmas: Reemove open coded functions with helper functions > > > > > >>Keerthy, Nishanth, could it be that there is still something wrong with the > > >>REGULATOR_LINEAR_RANGE() definitions? > > > > > >>This seems to be the cause for our trouble, but the other questions might > > >>still stand, in case there is interest in discussing them. > > > > > >There was a bug fix to the Palmas driver which just went to Linus the > > >other day, are you sure this isn't fixed in mainline (or -next, it's > > >been in -next for a week or something)? > > > > If you are talking about > > > > 6b7f2d82d5 > > regulator: palmas: Fix SMPS list for 0V > > > > then it is in my tree. There is actually no difference on > > palmas-regulator.c between my tree and the current -next (or Linus' > > tree for that instance). > > > > So it seems to be something else we are dealing with here. > > Your quote earlier in the thread > " > _regulator_is_enabled() *also* returns false > " > > Got me curious. Looking at the patch: > dbabd624d4eec50b623bab070d1e39a854b2d65c (regulator: palmas: Reemove > open coded functions with helper functions) > I noticed the following change > palmas_is_enabled_smps -> regulator_is_enabled_regmap > > So I decided to search for enable_reg in palmas-regulator.c and I think > it needs valid enable_reg, mask, value for regulator_is_enabled_regmap to work > :). > > Maybe to be sure, we could print the following: > PALMAS_SMPS8_VOLTAGE, PALMAS_SMPS8_CTRL, PALMAS_SMPS8_TSTEP, > > Anyways, I quickly boot tested the following on DRA7evm (which also uses Palmas): > [ 1.933939] palmas-pmic 48070000.i2c:tps659038@58:tps659038_pmic: enable_reg = 0x00, mask =0x00 > [ 1.944210] smps123: 850 <--> 1250 mV at 1060 mV > [ 1.950717] palmas-pmic 48070000.i2c:tps659038@58:tps659038_pmic: enable_reg = 0x00, mask =0x00 > [ 1.960754] smps45: 850 <--> 1150 mV at 1060 mV > [ 1.967048] palmas-pmic 48070000.i2c:tps659038@58:tps659038_pmic: enable_reg = 0x00, mask =0x00 > [ 1.977072] smps6: 850 <--> 1650 mV at 1060 mV > [ 1.983077] palmas-pmic 48070000.i2c:tps659038@58:tps659038_pmic: enable_reg = 0x00, mask =0x00 > [ 1.992994] smps7: 850 <--> 1030 mV at 1030 mV > [ 1.999238] palmas-pmic 48070000.i2c:tps659038@58:tps659038_pmic: enable_reg = 0x00, mask =0x00 > [ 2.009161] smps8: 850 <--> 1250 mV at 1060 mV > [ 2.015304] palmas-pmic 48070000.i2c:tps659038@58:tps659038_pmic: enable_reg = 0x00, mask =0x00 > > It does seem to me that either set_mode also should use core functions > OR you still need a palmas specific is_enable, enable/disable functions > (contrary to the claim of the patch in question - which I think > introduced regressions). > > Otherwise, completely untested diff below - can you give this a shot? > > diff --git a/drivers/regulator/palmas-regulator.c b/drivers/regulator/palmas-regulator.c > index b982f0f..bbfe22f 100644 > --- a/drivers/regulator/palmas-regulator.c > +++ b/drivers/regulator/palmas-regulator.c > @@ -964,6 +964,20 @@ static int palmas_regulators_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > return ret; > pmic->current_reg_mode[id] = reg & > PALMAS_SMPS12_CTRL_MODE_ACTIVE_MASK; > + > + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "enable_reg = 0x%02x, mask =0x%02x\n", > + pmic->desc[id].enable_reg, > + pmic->desc[id].enable_mask); > + pmic->desc[id].enable_reg = > + PALMAS_BASE_TO_REG(PALMAS_LDO_BASE, > + palmas_regs_info[id].ctrl_addr); > + pmic->desc[id].enable_mask = > + PALMAS_SMPS12_CTRL_MODE_ACTIVE_MASK; > + /* > + * The following completely ignores > + * pmic->current_reg_mode[id] (set_mode) > + */ > + pmic->desc[id].enable_val = SMPS_CTRL_MODE_ON; > } > > pmic->desc[id].type = REGULATOR_VOLTAGE; rev 2 of the diff - this does depened on the fact that regulator_desc is not memdup-ed by regulator code - that lets us do a bit of a trickery ;) - and I dropped the prints.. Unrelated: This makes me wonder why palmas_is_enabled_ldo at all? Keerthy, Mark, what do you think of the following (esp the flip of desc value): diff --git a/drivers/regulator/palmas-regulator.c b/drivers/regulator/palmas-regulator.c index b982f0f..f01d9c5 100644 --- a/drivers/regulator/palmas-regulator.c +++ b/drivers/regulator/palmas-regulator.c @@ -299,7 +299,7 @@ static int palmas_set_mode_smps(struct regulator_dev *dev, unsigned int mode) struct palmas_pmic *pmic = rdev_get_drvdata(dev); int id = rdev_get_id(dev); unsigned int reg; - bool rail_enable = true; + bool rail_enable = true, enable_val = true; palmas_smps_read(pmic->palmas, palmas_regs_info[id].ctrl_addr, ®); reg &= ~PALMAS_SMPS12_CTRL_MODE_ACTIVE_MASK; @@ -318,6 +318,7 @@ static int palmas_set_mode_smps(struct regulator_dev *dev, unsigned int mode) reg |= SMPS_CTRL_MODE_PWM; break; default: + enable_val = false; return -EINVAL; } @@ -325,6 +326,11 @@ static int palmas_set_mode_smps(struct regulator_dev *dev, unsigned int mode) if (rail_enable) palmas_smps_write(pmic->palmas, palmas_regs_info[id].ctrl_addr, reg); + + /* Switch the enable value to ensure this is used for enable */ + if (enable_val) + pmic->desc[id].enable_val = pmic->current_reg_mode[id]; + return 0; } @@ -964,6 +970,14 @@ static int palmas_regulators_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) return ret; pmic->current_reg_mode[id] = reg & PALMAS_SMPS12_CTRL_MODE_ACTIVE_MASK; + + pmic->desc[id].enable_reg = + PALMAS_BASE_TO_REG(PALMAS_LDO_BASE, + palmas_regs_info[id].ctrl_addr); + pmic->desc[id].enable_mask = + PALMAS_SMPS12_CTRL_MODE_ACTIVE_MASK; + /* set_mode overrides this value */ + pmic->desc[id].enable_val = SMPS_CTRL_MODE_ON; } pmic->desc[id].type = REGULATOR_VOLTAGE; -- Regards, Nishanth Menon -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists