[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160901192419.GL5967@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 20:24:19 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc: lgirdwood@...il.com, mka@...omium.org, briannorris@...omium.org,
javier@...hile0.org, linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org,
robh+dt@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] regulator: pwm: Add support for a fixed delay
after duty cycle changes
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 09:21:15PM -0700, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> A change of the duty cycle doesn't necessarily cause an immediate switch
> to the target voltage. On many PWM regulators there is a fixed "settle
> time" (irrespective of the jump size) that we need to wait after an
> upward jump. This change introduces the device tree property
> "settle-time-up-us" which allows us to specify a fixed delay after a
> voltage increase.
Why is this specific to regulators implemented with PWM controllers?
Most DCDCs have a PWM element and the concept of a hard time limit for
transition rather than a ramp rate doesn't seem like it'd be unique.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists