[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56FD7F07.7010404@nvidia.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 01:18:23 +0530
From: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
CC: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn@...o.se>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Gandhar Dighe <gdighe@...dia.com>,
Stuart Yates <syates@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: DT: Add support to scale ramp delay based
on platform behavior
On Friday 01 April 2016 12:52 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> * PGP Signed by an unknown key
>
> On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 12:29:05AM +0530, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>> On Friday 01 April 2016 12:29 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
>> But here is the stuff without typo ;-)
>> Device supports 5mV/us and 100mV/us which is not in observed value.
> So why doesn't the device end up configuring 100mV/us when asked for
> 50mv/us? That's reasonably expected - the configured ramp rate is a
> maximum rate given that this is used to limit inrush current.
>
>
We did this to adjust device configuration to nearest higher side but
this is not working well on some of cases.
On same device, DCDC (SD) rails support 4 ramp configurations,
13.75mV/us, 27.5mV/us, 55mV/us and 100mV/us.
HW team measured the ramp time at 7.5mV/us when device configured at
27.5mV/uS.
So as per above, it will be adjusted to 13.75mV/us (nearest higher side)
for device configuration but this device need to configure for 27.5mV/us.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists