[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c2a0f9fb-3b54-0a3f-2bfa-9575a9ae937f@phytec.de>
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2022 10:16:27 +0000
From: Wadim Egorov <W.Egorov@...tec.de>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>
CC: jerome Neanne <jneanne@...libre.com>,
"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>,
"vigneshr@...com" <vigneshr@...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.
Am 16.12.22 um 14:41 schrieb Mark Brown:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 03:41:49PM -0600, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>
>> Yeah - this happens to be SDcard supply (at least in my case).. I'd
>> rather not change the mmc host or core layer to handle a case where
>> LDO happened to be in bypass. it is a regulator driver's problem, IMHO
>> how to provide the stated voltage OR fail to transition the voltage.
> Well, if the regulator is in bypass mode then it is by definition not
> regulating and so it's like programming the voltage while switched off,
> setting the target for when it starts regulating again. It's a weirder
> use case but it does feel like the consistent thing to do at least.
> The driver shouldn't enter/leave bypass without being explicitly told to
> so since there'll be a performance impact.
>
>> b) If I wanted the LDO to poweroff the bypass bit at start (define the
>> startup hardware condition), I dont seem to have a description for
>> that either.
> That's something we could add in constraints, though the actual process
> of implementing it might get messy if there's restrictions like having
> to power off (though from further down the thread I see that might not
> apply to this device).
Just for the record:
My reported problem was actually not the LDO1/bypass situation, but an issue in
the process of resolving the regulator supplies.
It was resolved by
commit 0debed5b117d ("regulator: core: Fix resolve supply lookup issue")
Now everything seems to work with my setup with LDO1 supplied by a fixed
regulator and LDO1 acting in bypass mode on our hardware.
Regards,
Wadim
Powered by blists - more mailing lists