linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] mmc: core: Add mmc_regulator_set

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAD=FV=WpDE_iEFWFw094WBfBH2TgRi+1OGk3E3qQ3t1EfyrnJA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 7 Apr 2015 13:05:43 -0700
From:	Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:	Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
	Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
	Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@...sung.com>,
	Seungwon Jeon <tgih.jun@...sung.com>,
	Alexandru Stan <amstan@...omium.org>,
	Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
	Sonny Rao <sonnyrao@...omium.org>,
	Andrew Bresticker <abrestic@...omium.org>,
	Addy Ke <addy.ke@...k-chips.com>,
	Javier Martinez Canillas <javier.martinez@...labora.co.uk>,
	"open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC..." <linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Chris Ball <chris@...ntf.net>,
	Johan Rudholm <johan.rudholm@...s.com>,
	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
	Tim Kryger <tim.kryger@...il.com>,
	Andrew Gabbasov <andrew_gabbasov@...tor.com>,
	Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
	linux-mmc <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] mmc: core: Add mmc_regulator_set_vqmmc()

Hi,

On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:28 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> As previously discussed the problem is that there can be a *lot* of
> voltages on a modern regulator with fine grained voltage steps and
> tolerances are also used for things like cpufreq where we care about
> performance.  We need something that doesn't require a linear scan of
> possible values.

Finally getting back to this (sorry for the delay!).  I tried
modifying my patches to keep using the simple implementation of
regulator_set_voltage_tol() but to take two tolerances (lower and
upper).  ...but when I thought about it I decided it wasn't enough.  I
think that doing a proper implementation of
regulator_set_voltage_tol() is going to be a requirement for getting
the MMC core changes posted.

Specifically, I think the right implementation for the MMC core's 3.3V
signaling is something like this:

  /*
   * Bus operating conditions say that card should accept input
   * between (0.625 * VDD) and (VDD + 0.3), so we'll use those
   * as tolerances.
   */
  return mmc_regulator_set_voltage_if_supported(mmc->supply.vqmmc,
       vmmc_voltage, vmmc_voltage * 375 / 1000, 300000);

Ulf says he has a board where vmmc is 3.4V and the max vqmmc is 2.9V.
If we think about that board, we'll end up calling
regulator_set_voltage_tol() with a lower/upper tolerance of 1.275V and
.3V.

Extending the current simple implementation of
regulator_set_voltage_tol() to take an upper and lower, that will
translate to first trying to set the voltage to 3.4V - 3.7V, which
will fail.  We'll then try to set the voltage to 2.125V - 3.7V.
Presumably that will end up picking 2.125V, which is really non-ideal
compared to 2.9V and it seems likely to cause some cards to start
failing.

Mark: I know you said you were considering writing a better
regulator_set_voltage_tol() yourself, but I don't know if you've
already started work on it.

I'm expecting to maybe have time to take a crack at it in a few weeks
if you haven't already done it by then.

Thanks!

-Doug
--
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/