[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <be86691b529dd691203fbb5b35f8572e7e9119a8.camel@mediatek.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 18:53:39 +0800
From: Rex-BC Chen <rex-bc.chen@...iatek.com>
To: Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>, <rafael@...nel.org>,
<viresh.kumar@...aro.org>, <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
<krzk+dt@...nel.org>
CC: <matthias.bgg@...il.com>, <jia-wei.chang@...iatek.com>,
<roger.lu@...iatek.com>, <hsinyi@...gle.com>,
<linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>,
<Project_Global_Chrome_Upstream_Group@...iatek.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 10/15] cpufreq: mediatek: Make sram regulator optional
On Fri, 2022-04-08 at 13:32 -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Rex-BC Chen <rex-bc.chen@...iatek.com> writes:
>
> > From: Jia-Wei Chang <jia-wei.chang@...iatek.com>
> >
> > For some MediaTek SoCs, like MT8186, it's possible that the sram
> > regulator
> > is shared between CPU and CCI.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jia-Wei Chang <jia-wei.chang@...iatek.com>
>
> nit: missing your sign-off.
>
> > ---
> > drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c
> > b/drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c
> > index 9e9bce0ff235..8f688d47e64b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c
> > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c
> > @@ -435,7 +435,7 @@ static int mtk_cpu_dvfs_info_init(struct
> > mtk_cpu_dvfs_info *info, int cpu)
> > }
> >
> > /* Both presence and absence of sram regulator are valid cases.
> > */
> > - info->sram_reg = regulator_get_exclusive(cpu_dev, "sram");
> > + info->sram_reg = regulator_get_optional(cpu_dev, "sram");
>
> The changelog says that this regulator may be shared with CCI, so I
> understand it's no longer exclusive. But here you make it optional,
> which should be explained in the changelog. If it's not actually
> optional, then it should just be normal "get".
>
> Kevin
Hello Kevin,
Since cpufreq and cci devfreq might share the same sram regulator in
MediaTek SoC, it is no longer exclusive as you mentioned.
The reason to use regulator_get_optional is we hope regulator framework
can return error for error handling rather than a dummy handler from
regulator_get api.
I will add this to commit message in next version.
Thanks.
BRs,
Rex
Powered by blists - more mailing lists