[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <88f6110b-94b7-484d-cc37-d7f72c88090a@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2022 10:45:40 +0300
From: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>
To: Sebastian Reichel <sebastian.reichel@...labora.com>,
Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>
Cc: Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...labora.com,
shengfei Xu <xsf@...k-chips.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 12/13] regulator: rk808: add rk806 support
On 9/8/22 03:31, Sebastian Reichel wrote:
> Add rk806 support to the existing rk808 regulator
> driver.
>
> This has been implemented using shengfei Xu's rk806
> specific driver from the vendor tree as reference.
>
> Co-Developed-by: shengfei Xu <xsf@...k-chips.com>
> Signed-off-by: shengfei Xu <xsf@...k-chips.com>
> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Reichel <sebastian.reichel@...labora.com>
> ---
> drivers/regulator/rk808-regulator.c | 482 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 482 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/regulator/rk808-regulator.c b/drivers/regulator/rk808-regulator.c
> index fa9fc1aa1ae3..cd1a2cff4a37 100644
> --- a/drivers/regulator/rk808-regulator.c
> +++ b/drivers/regulator/rk808-regulator.c
Thanks for upstreaming the downstream stuff! :)
I wonder if we could drop some code by using the existing helpers? Or
maybe I am missreading some code. Wouldn't be the first (and probably
not the last) time...
//snip
> struct rk808_regulator_data {
> struct gpio_desc *dvs_gpio[2];
> };
> @@ -216,6 +271,223 @@ static const unsigned int rk817_buck1_4_ramp_table[] = {
> 3000, 6300, 12500, 25000
> };
>
> +static int rk806_get_voltage_sel_regmap(struct regulator_dev *rdev)
> +{
> + unsigned int val;
> + int vsel_reg, ret;
> +
> + vsel_reg = rdev->desc->vsel_reg;
> +
> + ret = regmap_read(rdev->regmap, vsel_reg, &val);
> + if (ret != 0)
> + return ret;
> +
> + val &= rdev->desc->vsel_mask;
> + val >>= ffs(rdev->desc->vsel_mask) - 1;
> +
> + return val;
> +}
Could we just use the regulator_get_voltage_sel_regmap()?
> +
> +static int rk806_set_voltage(struct regulator_dev *rdev,
> + int req_min_uV, int req_max_uV,
> + unsigned int *selector)
> +{
> + int vsel_reg, ret, sel;
> +
> + ret = regulator_map_voltage_linear_range(rdev, req_min_uV, req_max_uV);
> + if (ret >= 0) {
> + *selector = ret;
> + sel = ret;
> + } else {
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> + vsel_reg = rdev->desc->vsel_reg;
> +
> + sel <<= ffs(rdev->desc->vsel_mask) - 1;
> +
> + ret = regmap_update_bits(rdev->regmap, vsel_reg,
> + rdev->desc->vsel_mask, sel);
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
Hmm. Maybe this is not necessary? I wonder if we could get away just
with the .map and .set_voltage_sel (regulator_get_voltage_sel_regmap()
and regulator_map_voltage_linear_range()).
// snip
> +
> +static int rk806_set_ramp_delay_ldo(struct regulator_dev *rdev, int ramp_delay)
> +{
> + unsigned int ramp_value = RK806_RAMP_RATE_2LSB_PER_1CLK;
> + int regval;
> +
> + switch (ramp_delay) {
> + case 1 ... 780:
> + ramp_value = RK806_RAMP_RATE_1LSB_PER_32CLK;
> + break;
> + case 781 ... 1900:
> + ramp_value = RK806_RAMP_RATE_1LSB_PER_13CLK;
> + break;
> + case 1901 ... 3120:
> + ramp_value = RK806_RAMP_RATE_1LSB_PER_8CLK;
> + break;
> + case 3121 ... 6280:
> + ramp_value = RK806_RAMP_RATE_1LSB_PER_4CLK;
> + break;
> + case 6281 ... 12500:
> + ramp_value = RK806_RAMP_RATE_1LSB_PER_2CLK;
> + break;
> + case 12501 ... 25000:
> + ramp_value = RK806_RAMP_RATE_1LSB_PER_1CLK;
> + break;
> + case 25001 ... 50000:
> + ramp_value = RK806_RAMP_RATE_2LSB_PER_1CLK;
> + break;
> + case 50001 ... 100000:
> + ramp_value = RK806_RAMP_RATE_4LSB_PER_1CLK;
> + break;
> + default:
> + pr_warn("%s ramp_delay: %d not supported, setting 10000\n",
> + rdev->desc->name, ramp_delay);
> + }
> +
> + regval = ramp_value << (ffs(rdev->desc->ramp_mask) - 1);
> + return regmap_update_bits(rdev->regmap, rdev->desc->ramp_reg,
> + rdev->desc->ramp_mask, regval);
> +}
Do you think we could get rid of this function by populating a
ramp-delay table and using regulator_set_ramp_delay_regmap()?
Best Regards
-- Matti
--
Matti Vaittinen
Linux kernel developer at ROHM Semiconductors
Oulu Finland
~~ When things go utterly wrong vim users can always type :help! ~~
Powered by blists - more mailing lists