| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAAVeFuJ=JTNkwDKBvuoyL=ARQs_UJb_MHzL9S8gOc8EU98znPg@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 23:14:51 +0900 From: Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com> To: Nishanth Menon <nm@...com> Cc: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@...dia.com>, 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 Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 10:54 PM, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com> wrote: > 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; Tried this v2 and it seems to do the trick! My panel switches on as expected. Thanks, Alex. -- 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