[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aea80c251dbafa8f2cd433eaf397a754812338d8.camel@fi.rohmeurope.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 10:39:57 +0000
From: "Vaittinen, Matti" <Matti.Vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>
To: "broonie@...nel.org" <broonie@...nel.org>
CC: "corbet@....net" <corbet@....net>,
"phil.edworthy@...esas.com" <phil.edworthy@...esas.com>,
"dmurphy@...com" <dmurphy@...com>,
"linux-leds@...r.kernel.org" <linux-leds@...r.kernel.org>,
"lee.jones@...aro.org" <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
"linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
"mchehab+samsung@...nel.org" <mchehab+samsung@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com" <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
"mturquette@...libre.com" <mturquette@...libre.com>,
"lgirdwood@...il.com" <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
"jacek.anaszewski@...il.com" <jacek.anaszewski@...il.com>,
"mazziesaccount@...il.com" <mazziesaccount@...il.com>,
"a.zummo@...ertech.it" <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
"hkallweit1@...il.com" <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linus.walleij@...aro.org" <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
"hofrat@...dl.org" <hofrat@...dl.org>,
"jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
"robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
"mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>,
"m.szyprowski@...sung.com" <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
"wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com" <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
"linux-clk@...r.kernel.org" <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
"sboyd@...nel.org" <sboyd@...nel.org>,
"pavel@....cz" <pavel@....cz>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"bgolaszewski@...libre.com" <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 01/16] dt-bindings: regulator: Document ROHM BD71282
regulator bindings
On Wed, 2019-12-04 at 14:14 +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 01:13:08PM +0000, Vaittinen, Matti wrote:
>
> > I think I once again explained myself badly. There can be only one
> > group with 4 RUN states selected by combination of 2 GPIO lines.
> > bucks
> > 1,2,6 and 7 can each either be assigned into this one group or
> > controlled individually via I2C. But I doubt assigning only one of
> > the
> > bucks in this group is the typical use-case. What we would need
> > would
>
> I don't think this is as unusual as you're thinking - the
> regulators people want to control quickly are usually the main
> CPU supply regulators and these often vary independently of
> anything else.
Hmm. I see your point. You might be correct. Allowing only one buck to
be assigned in 'run-level group' (to be controlled by GPIOs) would be
totally possible with current regulator API - and it might be useful
for scaling the CPU voltage. I appreciate your help and experience here
:) Implementing it would be also pretty simple, caching and controlling
the run-level voltages is already there in patch 12, I just should
restrict the group size to one buck. I will see how it works and also
ask if my colleagues know whether this is valuable with our current
customer's SOCs. Thanks a bunch!
Br,
Matti Vaittinen
Powered by blists - more mailing lists