[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <571119D5.3040309@wwwdotorg.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 10:41:57 -0600
From: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
To: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>
Cc: thierry.reding@...il.com, linus.walleij@...aro.org,
gnurou@...il.com, robh+dt@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com,
jonathanh@...dia.com, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] soc/tegra: pmc: Add interface to set voltage of IO
rails
On 04/15/2016 10:21 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>
> On Friday 15 April 2016 09:54 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 04/12/2016 08:56 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>>> NVIDIA Tegra210 supports some of the IO interface which can operate
>>> at 1.8V or 3.3V I/O rail voltage levels. SW needs to configure
>>> Tegra PMC register to set different voltage level of IO interface based
>>> on IO rail voltage from power supply i.e. power regulators.
>>>
>>> Add APIs to set and get IO rail voltage from the client driver.
>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/soc/tegra/pmc.c b/drivers/soc/tegra/pmc.c
>>
>>> +static struct tegra_io_rail_voltage_bit_info
>>> tegra210_io_rail_voltage_info[] = {
>>> + TEGRA_IO_RAIL_VOLTAGE(SDMMC1, 12),
>>> + TEGRA_IO_RAIL_VOLTAGE(SDMMC3, 13),
>>> + TEGRA_IO_RAIL_VOLTAGE(AUDIO_HV, 18),
>>> + TEGRA_IO_RAIL_VOLTAGE(DMIC, 20),
>>> + TEGRA_IO_RAIL_VOLTAGE(GPIO, 21),
>>> + TEGRA_IO_RAIL_VOLTAGE(SPI_HV, 23),
>>> +};
>>
>> That table is likely specific to Tegra210, yet ...
>>
>>> +static int tegra_io_rail_voltage_get_bit_pos(int io_rail_id)
>>> +int tegra_io_rail_voltage_set(int io_rail, int val)
>>> +int tegra_io_rail_voltage_get(int io_rail)
>>
>> ... these functions are all named as if they are generic. Presumably
>> they will indeed be needed for the next chip too? How will you prevent
>> their use, or turn these functions into no-ops, or return errors, on
>> other SoCs?
>
> It will return error for the Soc which does to support or the parameter
> to the apis which are not applicable.
Are you saying that will happen in the current code? I don't see where
there's anything that validates that.
Or does "will" mean "I will do that in the next patch revision"?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists