[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150925164726.GI30445@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 09:47:26 -0700
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>, kernel@...gutronix.de,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: Voltage setting on chained regulators, how?
On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 11:07:24AM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> Any idea how such a scenario could be implemented? The regulator
> framework already has some idea of supply regulators, but it only takes
> care of en/disabling the supplies and will not change the voltage on the
> supplies. Should this be implemented in the regulator framework? Some
> first experiments brought me into a locking hell quite fast.
It's just a case of implementation, but yes the locking is fun. I don't
think it's that big a deal to rethink it, it's partly complicated since
the existing locking is designed to be really simple and easy to review.
> For added fun ideally we want to put the LDOs in bypass mode instead of
> configuring them for minimum dropout. The bypass mode doesn't work for
> the 1.2GHz operating point though since the ripple on the switching
> regulator gets too high. So we can't just statically configure bypass
> mode but have to enable it dynamically based on the operating points.
I suspect you always want the LDO in there to clean the supply up, it's
just a more serious issue when more power is being drawn. Having a DCDC
doing most of the voltage drop for efficiency with a LDO to clean up the
output of the DCDC is pretty common.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists