Message-ID: <1623209884.3371.2.camel@richtek.com>
Date:   Wed, 9 Jun 2021 03:38:56 +0000
From:   cy_huang(黃啟原) <cy_huang@...htek.com>
To:     "axel.lin@...ics.com" <axel.lin@...ics.com>
CC:     "lgirdwood@...il.com" <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "u0084500@...il.com" <u0084500@...il.com>,
        "broonie@...nel.org" <broonie@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: rt6160: Convert to use
 regulator_set_ramp_delay_regmap

於 三，2021-06-09 於 11:32 +0800，Axel Lin 提到：
> cy_huang(黃啟原) <cy_huang@...htek.com> 於 2021年6月4日 週五 下午2:29寫道：
> >
> >
> >
> > 於 五，2021-06-04 於 13:59 +0800，Axel Lin 提到：
> >
> > cy_huang(黃啟原) <cy_huang@...htek.com> 於 2021年6月4日 週五 下午1:48寫道：
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 於 五，2021-06-04 於 11:30 +0800，Axel Lin 提到：
> >
> > cy_huang(黃啟原) <cy_huang@...htek.com> 於 2021年6月4日 週五 上午10:26寫道：
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > cy_huang(黃啟原) <cy_huang@...htek.com> 於 2021年6月3日 週四 下午11:18寫道：
> >
> >
> > Hi,> >
> >
> >
> > cy_huang(黃啟原) <cy_huang@...htek.com> 於 2021年6月3日 週四 下午6:20寫道：
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi, Axel:> Use regulator_set_ramp_delay_regmap instead of open-coded.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > There's some reason.
> > You can refer to https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/6/1/1145.
> >
> > It's because our ramp value order is from small to large, not large to
> > small.
> > It conflicts with find_closest_bigger value chosen logic.
> >
> > I have verified the rt6160_set_ramp_delay() behavior exactly the same as
> > regulator_set_ramp_delay_regmap. (both functions get the same selector
> > for a given delay)
> >
> > Could you check if this patch works?
> >
> > Sure.
> >
> > After my test sample code, below's the result.
> > ascending [1000 2500 5000 10000]
> > target =  1000 =>sel = 0
> > target =  2500 =>sel = 1
> > target =  5000 =>sel = 2
> > target = 10000 =>sel = 3
> > target =  1700 =>sel = 1
> > target =  2750 =>sel = 2
> > target =  7500 =>sel = 3
> > target = 15000 =>failed to find best select, sel = 3
> > target =     0 =>sel = 0
> > descending [10000 5000 2500 1000]
> > target =  1000 =>sel = 3
> > target =  2500 =>sel = 2
> > target =  5000 =>sel = 1
> > target = 10000 =>sel = 0
> > target =  1700 =>sel = 2
> > target =  2750 =>sel = 1
> > target =  7500 =>sel = 0
> > target = 15000 =>failed to find best select, sel = 0
> > target =     0 =>sel = 3
> >
> >
> > It means when target is in range or even over, the result are all correct.
> > But like as the ramp target is equal to 0, the selection will only choose the minimum one.
> > When the ramp target is equal to 0, it means the user want to disable the rammpping function.
> >
> > As I know, if target is equal to 0, it must find the fastest rampping value as the best selection.
> >
> >
> > If your table is [1000 2500 5000 10000], find_closest_bigger() will
> > choose sel=0 when ramp_delay=0.
> > If your table is [10000 5000 2500 1000], find_closest_bigger() will
> > choose sel=3 when ramp_delay=0.
> > i.e. In both cases, find_closest_bigger() chooses the fastest ramping value.
> >
> > This meets your exception.
> >
> > Actually, even if your table is [10000, 1000, 5000, 2500],
> > find_closest_bigger() still can choose the correct selector.
> > i.e. sel=1 when ramp_delay=0 in this case.
> >
> > This selection may be wrong.
> > ramp_delay=0 means ramp disabled,
> > If chip not support rampping disable, this selection must be configured as fastest rampping value, not the minimum
> > one.
> >
> >
> > 0 does not mean ramp disable.
> > It could be explicitly set to zero or its unintialized (zero by default).
> > see
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/drivers/regulator/core.c?id=1653ccf4c52df6
> > a4abe8ec2f33f2cb2896d129ea
> >
> > How about 'ramp_disable' falg is true?
> >
> >
> > My understanding is:
> > If the h/w does not support disabling ramp_delay, the regulator core
> > won't call ops->set_ramp_delay when ramp_delay=0.
> > If the h/w supports disabling ramp, i.e. ramp_disable flag is true,
> > the regulator core will
> > call ops->set_ramp_delay with ramp_delay=0. in this case, it should
> > have an exactly match and
> > write the register to disable ramp_delay.
> >
> >
> > If this can be guaranteed , to use the set_ramp_delay_regmap helper function would be better.
> Hi ChiYuan,
> Can you add  Reviewed-by or Acked-by if this patch works.
Sure, already tested.

Reviewed-by: ChiYuan Huang <cy_huang@...htek.com>
>
> Regards,
> Axel
************* Email Confidentiality Notice ********************

The information contained in this e-mail message (including any attachments) may be confidential, proprietary, privileged, or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable laws. It is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). Any use, dissemination, distribution, printing, retaining or copying of this e-mail (including its attachments) by unintended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not an intended recipient of this e-mail, or believe that you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately (by replying to this e-mail), delete any and all copies of this e-mail (including any attachments) from your system, and do not disclose the content of this e-mail to any other person. Thank you!

Powered by blists - more mailing lists