linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: DT: Add support to scale ramp delay based on platform behavior

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Tue, 5 Apr 2016 13:31:41 +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 09:41 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> * PGP Signed by an unknown key
>
> On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 12:45:21PM +0530, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>> On Friday 01 April 2016 02:09 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> Is the error in the observed values a function of the capacitance that
>>> we can calcuate here?
>> As per datasheet, There is no direct equation for ramp time deviation when
>> regulator output current cross the regulator current limit.
> OK, so it's really a current limit that's kicking in rather than a ramp
> rate control (though if it's a current limit I'm still not clear why the
> target rate limits where we cap)?  Can we do something based on the
> maximum load configured and the current limit?  That sounds more generic
> anyway, a current limiting feature is quite common.  If we implement the
> current limit interface for the regulator and then specify what the
> maximum load is we should be able to do the calculations you quoted from
> the datasheet I'd have thought (unless I'm missing something).

We are not having any control/configuration for this in this particular 
observations. All are set at maximum and still seeing this deviation.

During a DVS transition, the regulators output current will increase by 
COUT*dV/dt. In the event that the load current plus the additional 
current imposed by the DVS transition, reach the regulators current 
limit, the current limit will be enforced. When the current limit is 
enforced, the advertised DVS transition rate (dV/dt) will not occur.

Now there is not really equation that how it control dV/dt with required 
current vs regulators current limit current limit.

Working with HW team on LDO3 rail, we observed that Vendor recommend the 
Cout to 2.2uF. With having this capacitor in rail, we meet the 
advertised dv/dt i.e. 100mV/us.
In Our platform, we have used 2x4.7uF for signal conditioning and we 
observed dv/dt went by half.
When we changed the output capacitor to 2.2uF, we get exactly what 
vendor advertised.

So can we derive the configured value from the ramp time (platform) and 
some multiplication factor? If this is not common way then probably 
maxim specific as suggested by Bjorn.