[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160822180932.GW22076@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2016 19:09:32 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Rask Ingemann Lambertsen <ccc94453@....cybercity.dk>
Cc: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-sunxi@...glegroups.com,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/9] regulator: core: Try full range when adjusting
regulators to constraints
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 07:52:05PM +0200, Rask Ingemann Lambertsen wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 05:29:07PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > This seems like you have buggy constraints, constraints which allow
> > voltages that can't physically be satisfied don't make obvious sense.
> No, it's for cases like this (see the cubietruck4 or a80-optimus dts
> patches):
> reg_bldo4: bldo4 {
> regulator-min-microvolt = <1080000>;
> regulator-max-microvolt = <1320000>;
> regulator-name = "vcc12-hsic";
> };
> The regulator can do 1100000 uV, 1200000 uV and 1300000 uV, all of which
> are within the constraints, so obviously the constraints can be satisfied,
> yet the regulator core fails do so with a message like this:
Sure, but the constraints also say that you can do 1.32V which the
system is not physically capable of delivering. That's not a good sign
for the constraints, it suggests that at least the capabilities of the
regulator have not been taken into consideration when setting up the
constraints.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists