[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAD=FV=UXOse+yRUmZBUOkfpWXPRKBw2R-+BVzPGcuwwFV_VqQw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2023 06:47:41 -0700
From: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: Amit Pundir <amit.pundir@...aro.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>,
Caleb Connolly <caleb.connolly@...aro.org>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: qcom-rpmh: Revert "regulator: qcom-rpmh: Use PROBE_FORCE_SYNCHRONOUS"
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 6:18 AM Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 04:29:29PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
>
> > 2. Try adding some delays to some of the regulators with
> > "regulator-enable-ramp-delay" and/or "regulator-settling-time-us".
> > Without a scope, it'll be tricky to figure out exactly which
> > regulators might need delays, but you could at least confirm if the
> > "overkill" approach of having all the regulators have some delay
> > helps... I guess you could also try putting a big delay for "ldo26".
> > If that works, you could try moving it up (again using a bisect style
> > approach) to see where the delay matters?
>
> This is information which should be in the datasheets for the part.
I was thinking more of something board-specific, not part specific. In
theory with RPMH this is also all supposed to be abstracted out into
the firmware code that sets up RPMH which magically takes care of
things like this, but it certainly could be wrong.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists