[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b6ea8cb7-38c4-13cf-a08a-ece973859342@ti.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2022 11:51:28 +0530
From: Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>
To: Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
CC: jerome Neanne <jneanne@...libre.com>,
Wadim Egorov <W.Egorov@...tec.de>,
"lgirdwood@...il.com" <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
"robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
"kristo@...nel.org" <kristo@...nel.org>,
"dmitry.torokhov@...il.com" <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
"krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org"
<krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
"catalin.marinas@....com" <catalin.marinas@....com>,
"will@...nel.org" <will@...nel.org>,
"lee@...nel.org" <lee@...nel.org>,
"tony@...mide.com" <tony@...mide.com>,
"shawnguo@...nel.org" <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
"geert+renesas@...der.be" <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
"dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org" <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>,
"marcel.ziswiler@...adex.com" <marcel.ziswiler@...adex.com>,
"vkoul@...nel.org" <vkoul@...nel.org>,
"biju.das.jz@...renesas.com" <biju.das.jz@...renesas.com>,
"arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
"jeff@...undy.com" <jeff@...undy.com>, "afd@...com" <afd@...com>,
"khilman@...libre.com" <khilman@...libre.com>,
"narmstrong@...libre.com" <narmstrong@...libre.com>,
"msp@...libre.com" <msp@...libre.com>,
"j-keerthy@...com" <j-keerthy@...com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-input@...r.kernel.org" <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-omap@...r.kernel.org" <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/6] DONOTMERGE: arm64: dts: ti: Add TI TPS65219 PMIC
support for AM642 SK board.
On 16/12/22 03:11, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> On 18:22-20221215, Mark Brown wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 11:54:11AM -0600, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>>> On 16:09-20221215, Mark Brown wrote:
>>
>>>> That proposal looks really non-idiomatic and quite unusual, if there's a
>>>> fixed voltage supply to the LDO I'd expect to see it modeled as a fixed
>>>> voltage regulator. I'm not sure what the use of bypass here is trying
>>>> to accomplish TBH.
>>
>>> The problem is this - the default NVM in the PMIC is setup such that
>>> VSET value =3.3v and bypass bit set (makes sense since the vin=3.3v).
>>
>> This implies no voltage drop over the LDO? Sounds a bit suspect.
>
> Not the choice I'd probably have made ;)
>
>>
>>> Now the constraint is bypass bit cannot be changed without the LDO
>>> being switched off.
>>
Per https://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/tps65219.pdf (7.3.6 Linear
Regulators).
LDOs have two modes:
1. Load switch mode: in this case, output voltages of 1.5V up to 5.5V
are supported.
2 Linear regulator LDO mode where output voltage is programmable in the
range of 0.6V to 3.4V in 50mV-steps with possibility of bypass.
(CAUTION on page 25):
A mode change between LDO(/bypass) and LSW-mode must only be performed,
when this regulator is disabled!
A change between LDO and bypass-mode (supported by LDO1 and LDO2 only)
is supported during operation.
So, seems like bypass can be toggled even with LDO on?
[...]
Regards
Vignesh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists