[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180530163644.GW6920@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 17:36:44 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc: David Collins <collinsd@...eaurora.org>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] regulator: dt-bindings: add QCOM RPMh regulator
bindings
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 09:31:55AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 9:13 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> > If we're just going to use the most recently set voltage then hopefully
> > the hardware already knew that, and it might not be the lowest available
> > voltage if the last consumer to get turned off was holding the voltage
> > higher.
> To circle back to the original point: the problem is that (IMHO) the
> hardware is doing the wrong thing by still counting Linux's vote for a
> voltage even though Linux also voted that the regulator should be
> disabled. So basically we're working around the hardware by
> pretending to vote for a dummy lower voltage whenever Linux wants the
> regulator disabled. From Linux's point of view everything works as
> normal--we just tell the hardware a falsehood so it doesn't count our
> vote for a voltage while the regulator is disabled.
Yeah, and I don't think that's unreasonable for the core to do - just
drop the voltage to the constraint minimum after it has turned off the
regulator, then recheck and raise if needed before it enables again.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists