linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH PATCH] arm64: dts: sunxi: nanopi-neo-plus2: Add pio regulators

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <aa33692c-4cae-4c41-959d-f2ecd56334b7@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2024 16:24:41 +0200
From: Kryštof Černý <cleverline1mc@...il.com>
To: wens@...e.org
Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley
 <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...il.com>,
 Samuel Holland <samuel@...lland.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-sunxi@...ts.linux.dev,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH PATCH] arm64: dts: sunxi: nanopi-neo-plus2: Add pio
 regulators

Yes, you are right with vcc-pd, I misunderstood it, thank you. Let me 
explain and ask about the rest:
VDD_SYS_3.3V = reg_vcc3v3
Groups PA, PE, PF are powered from vcc-io, according to Allwinner H5 
datasheet, Vcc-io is connected to VDD_SYS_3.3V, just like mmc0. Should 
those be set or omitted?
vcc-pc (ball G15), which is labeled as vcc_io2 (probably wrong), which 
is also connected to VDD_SYS_3.3V.
vcc-pd (ball J15) is bonded to VDD_PHY_2.5V, which is always on and made 
from VDD_SYS_3.3V, so I should make a new fixed regulator of name 
"reg_gmac_2v5"? Mainline eth driver does not implement this pin, so it 
would be used only for the pio.
vcc-pg (ball H7) is also VDD_SYS_3.3V.
While PL is supplied from vcc-rtc (vcc_rtc, ball K6), it is connected 
directly to the VDD_SYS_3.3V too, should this be the same regulator or a 
new one or omitted too?
Do you agree with my findings? I hope they are 100% now. If so, I will 
try to make V2 with a new fixed regulator of 2.5V for the PD.

Many thanks for your replies, I will do better next time.

Dne 24. 08. 24 v 14:34 Chen-Yu Tsai napsal(a):
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Aug 24, 2024 at 5:08 PM Kryštof Černý <cleverline1mc@...il.com> wrote:
>> I am sorry if the message is wrong, this is my first patch ever sent to
>> the Linux kernel. I have checked the schematic of the board and it
>> shares the same power line with mmc0, so I assumed I can use the same
>> regulator. Thanks for your feedback and I would be glad for your further
>> response.
> So some of the pin groups do have dedicated supplies, and should thus be
> described, but not all of them. The schematic only shows dedicated
> supplies for PD and PG pingroups. So just add those. PD supply is from
> 2.5V ethernet PHY I/O regulator supply, so you would need to add that
> as well.
>
> The datasheet also mentions a separate supply pin for PC pingroup, but
> it is not shown in the schematic. I would just omit that.
>
> And as Krzysztof mentioned, device tree changes should be to model
> the hardware, not to work around some operating system warning. At
> least most of the time that is. So your commit message should also
> be about fixing the description or providing more detail, and not
> about the operating system.
>
>
> ChenYu
>
>> Dne 24. 08. 24 v 9:40 Krzysztof Kozlowski napsal(a):
>>> On 24/08/2024 09:09, Kryštof Černý wrote:
>>>> The board does not have a dedicated regulator for pio and r_pio,
>>>> but this fixes the kernel warning about dummy regulators being used.
>>>> Tested on the actual board.
>>>>
>>> Judging by commit msg these are not correct regulators. Please do not
>>> add incorrect hardware description to silence some warnings coming from
>>> OS. Either you need proper (correct) hardware description or fix the
>>> problem other way, assuming there is anything to fix in the first place.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Krzysztof
>>>