Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1244615 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH 4/6] regulator: core: Propagate voltage changes to supply regulators

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH 4/6] regulator: core: Propagate voltage changes to supply  regulators Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de> - 2015-10-12 13:50 +0200
    Re: [PATCH 4/6] regulator: core: Propagate voltage changes to supply  regulators Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> - 2015-10-12 16:10 +0200
      Re: [PATCH 4/6] regulator: core: Propagate voltage changes to supply  regulators Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de> - 2015-10-13 11:40 +0200

#1244615 — Re: [PATCH 4/6] regulator: core: Propagate voltage changes to supply regulators

Hi Mark,

On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 06:32:56PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 04:05:44PM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> 
> > A new min_dropout_uv field is added to struct regulator_desc. Regulators
> > can specify the minimun dropout voltage they need for proper function
> > here. Now when the voltage is changed on a regulator the regulator core
> > makes sure that
> 
> Can we have this interface addition as a separate patch please?  Makes
> it easier to add to other devices.  I could've sworn I'd already done
> that bit but obviously never got the patch mailed out.
> 
> One change I think we need here is only doing the propagation if either
> the device lacks a set_voltage() operation (in which case it's just a
> switch passing through the parent voltage)

Does the lack of a set_voltage() operation automatically mean it's a
switch passing through the parent voltage? What if the regulator is a
fixed regulator and the output can't be controlled because there is only
one voltage?

Currently we bail out int regulator_set_voltage() when we do not have a
set_voltage() or set_voltage_sel() operation. Instead of propagating the
voltage change up I would keep the current behaviour and implement voltage
propagation for switches when we need it. Then we could also introduce a
REGULATOR_IS_SWITCH flag indicating that this is a switch and not a
fixed voltage regulator.

Sascha


-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1244726

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 01:42:59PM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 06:32:56PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:

> > One change I think we need here is only doing the propagation if either
> > the device lacks a set_voltage() operation (in which case it's just a
> > switch passing through the parent voltage)

> Does the lack of a set_voltage() operation automatically mean it's a
> switch passing through the parent voltage? What if the regulator is a
> fixed regulator and the output can't be controlled because there is only
> one voltage?

Sorry, that was a typo for get_voltage().

> Currently we bail out int regulator_set_voltage() when we do not have a
> set_voltage() or set_voltage_sel() operation. Instead of propagating the
> voltage change up I would keep the current behaviour and implement voltage
> propagation for switches when we need it. Then we could also introduce a
> REGULATOR_IS_SWITCH flag indicating that this is a switch and not a
> fixed voltage regulator.

We already have people who'd like it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1245507

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 03:07:37PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 01:42:59PM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 06:32:56PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> 
> > > One change I think we need here is only doing the propagation if either
> > > the device lacks a set_voltage() operation (in which case it's just a
> > > switch passing through the parent voltage)
> 
> > Does the lack of a set_voltage() operation automatically mean it's a
> > switch passing through the parent voltage? What if the regulator is a
> > fixed regulator and the output can't be controlled because there is only
> > one voltage?
> 
> Sorry, that was a typo for get_voltage().

Ah, that makes it clear.

Sascha

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web