[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170430123001.iwauodtjkbnmjmsl@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 21:30:01 +0900
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>
Cc: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: Allow for asymmetric settling times
On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 01:32:09PM +0530, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
> On Saturday 29 April 2017 05:36 AM, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> > -- regulator-settling-time-us: Settling time, in microseconds, for voltage
> > - change if regulator have the constant time for any level voltage change.
> > - This is useful when regulator have exponential voltage change.
> > +- regulator-settling-time-up-us: Settling time, in microseconds, for voltage
> > + increase if the regulator needs a constant time to settle after voltage
> > + increases of any level. This is useful for regulators with exponential
> > + voltage changes.
> > +- regulator-settling-time-down-us: Settling time, in microseconds, for voltage
> > + decrease if the regulator needs a constant time to settle after voltage
> > + decreases of any level. This is useful for regulators with exponential
> > + voltage changes.
> Can we have regulator-settling-time-us also so if it is there then up/down
> same.
> If up/down different then separate properties can be used.
Removing the existing binding would also break existing DTs using it
which we obviously don't want. I don't see any reason to even deprecate
it, like Laxman says it's nice and convenient for people with symmetric
performance.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists