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

Groups > linux.kernel > #1410405 > unrolled thread

[PATCH resend v2 1/6] regulator: axp20x: support AXP809 variant

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

  [PATCH resend v2 1/6] regulator: axp20x: support AXP809 variant Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org> - 2016-05-31 18:30 +0200
    Re: [PATCH resend v2 1/6] regulator: axp20x: support AXP809 variant Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> - 2016-05-31 19:40 +0200
      Re: [PATCH resend v2 1/6] regulator: axp20x: support AXP809 variant Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org> - 2016-06-01 04:10 +0200
        Re: [PATCH resend v2 1/6] regulator: axp20x: support AXP809 variant Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> - 2016-06-02 12:30 +0200
          Re: [PATCH resend v2 1/6] regulator: axp20x: support AXP809 variant Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org> - 2016-06-02 13:10 +0200
            Re: [PATCH resend v2 1/6] regulator: axp20x: support AXP809 variant Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> - 2016-06-02 15:30 +0200
              Re: [PATCH resend v2 1/6] regulator: axp20x: support AXP809 variant Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org> - 2016-06-02 16:20 +0200

#1410405 — [PATCH resend v2 1/6] regulator: axp20x: support AXP809 variant

The X-Powers AXP809 PMIC has a similar set of regulators as the AXP221,
though a few LDOs were removed, and a new switch output added. Like the
AXP221, AXP809 also has DC1SW and DC5LDO, which are internally chained
to DCDC1 and DCDC5, respectively.

Add support for this new variant. Also remove the "axp22x_" prefix from
DC1SW/DC5LDO supply handling code, as the AXP809 uses it as well.

Signed-off-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org>
---
 drivers/regulator/axp20x-regulator.c | 119 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
 1 file changed, 90 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/regulator/axp20x-regulator.c b/drivers/regulator/axp20x-regulator.c
index 514a5e8fdbab..728be64e817a 100644
--- a/drivers/regulator/axp20x-regulator.c
+++ b/drivers/regulator/axp20x-regulator.c
@@ -230,6 +230,61 @@ static const struct regulator_desc axp22x_regulators[] = {
 	AXP_DESC_FIXED(AXP22X, RTC_LDO, "rtc_ldo", "ips", 3000),
 };
 
+static const struct regulator_linear_range axp809_dcdc4_ranges[] = {
+	REGULATOR_LINEAR_RANGE(600000, 0x0, 0x2f, 20000),
+	REGULATOR_LINEAR_RANGE(1800000, 0x30, 0x38, 100000),
+};
+
+static const struct regulator_linear_range axp809_dldo1_ranges[] = {
+	REGULATOR_LINEAR_RANGE(700000, 0x0, 0x1a, 100000),
+	REGULATOR_LINEAR_RANGE(3400000, 0x1b, 0x1f, 200000),
+};
+
+static const struct regulator_desc axp809_regulators[] = {
+	AXP_DESC(AXP809, DCDC1, "dcdc1", "vin1", 1600, 3400, 100,
+		 AXP22X_DCDC1_V_OUT, 0x1f, AXP22X_PWR_OUT_CTRL1, BIT(1)),
+	AXP_DESC(AXP809, DCDC2, "dcdc2", "vin2", 600, 1540, 20,
+		 AXP22X_DCDC2_V_OUT, 0x3f, AXP22X_PWR_OUT_CTRL1, BIT(2)),
+	AXP_DESC(AXP809, DCDC3, "dcdc3", "vin3", 600, 1860, 20,
+		 AXP22X_DCDC3_V_OUT, 0x3f, AXP22X_PWR_OUT_CTRL1, BIT(3)),
+	AXP_DESC_RANGES(AXP809, DCDC4, "dcdc4", "vin4", axp809_dcdc4_ranges,
+			57, AXP22X_DCDC4_V_OUT, 0x3f, AXP22X_PWR_OUT_CTRL1,
+			BIT(4)),
+	AXP_DESC(AXP809, DCDC5, "dcdc5", "vin5", 1000, 2550, 50,
+		 AXP22X_DCDC5_V_OUT, 0x1f, AXP22X_PWR_OUT_CTRL1, BIT(5)),
+	/* secondary switchable output of DCDC1 */
+	AXP_DESC_SW(AXP809, DC1SW, "dc1sw", NULL, AXP22X_PWR_OUT_CTRL2,
+		    BIT(7)),
+	/* LDO regulator internally chained to DCDC5 */
+	AXP_DESC(AXP809, DC5LDO, "dc5ldo", NULL, 700, 1400, 100,
+		 AXP22X_DC5LDO_V_OUT, 0x7, AXP22X_PWR_OUT_CTRL1, BIT(0)),
+	AXP_DESC(AXP809, ALDO1, "aldo1", "aldoin", 700, 3300, 100,
+		 AXP22X_ALDO1_V_OUT, 0x1f, AXP22X_PWR_OUT_CTRL1, BIT(6)),
+	AXP_DESC(AXP809, ALDO2, "aldo2", "aldoin", 700, 3300, 100,
+		 AXP22X_ALDO2_V_OUT, 0x1f, AXP22X_PWR_OUT_CTRL1, BIT(7)),
+	AXP_DESC(AXP809, ALDO3, "aldo3", "aldoin", 700, 3300, 100,
+		 AXP22X_ALDO3_V_OUT, 0x1f, AXP22X_PWR_OUT_CTRL2, BIT(5)),
+	AXP_DESC_RANGES(AXP809, DLDO1, "dldo1", "dldoin", axp809_dldo1_ranges,
+			32, AXP22X_DLDO1_V_OUT, 0x1f, AXP22X_PWR_OUT_CTRL2,
+			BIT(3)),
+	AXP_DESC(AXP809, DLDO2, "dldo2", "dldoin", 700, 3300, 100,
+		 AXP22X_DLDO2_V_OUT, 0x1f, AXP22X_PWR_OUT_CTRL2, BIT(4)),
+	AXP_DESC(AXP809, ELDO1, "eldo1", "eldoin", 700, 3300, 100,
+		 AXP22X_ELDO1_V_OUT, 0x1f, AXP22X_PWR_OUT_CTRL2, BIT(0)),
+	AXP_DESC(AXP809, ELDO2, "eldo2", "eldoin", 700, 3300, 100,
+		 AXP22X_ELDO2_V_OUT, 0x1f, AXP22X_PWR_OUT_CTRL2, BIT(1)),
+	AXP_DESC(AXP809, ELDO3, "eldo3", "eldoin", 700, 3300, 100,
+		 AXP22X_ELDO3_V_OUT, 0x1f, AXP22X_PWR_OUT_CTRL2, BIT(2)),
+	AXP_DESC_IO(AXP809, LDO_IO0, "ldo_io0", "ips", 700, 3300, 100,
+		    AXP22X_LDO_IO0_V_OUT, 0x1f, AXP20X_GPIO0_CTRL, 0x07,
+		    AXP22X_IO_ENABLED, AXP22X_IO_DISABLED),
+	AXP_DESC_IO(AXP809, LDO_IO1, "ldo_io1", "ips", 700, 3300, 100,
+		    AXP22X_LDO_IO1_V_OUT, 0x1f, AXP20X_GPIO1_CTRL, 0x07,
+		    AXP22X_IO_ENABLED, AXP22X_IO_DISABLED),
+	AXP_DESC_FIXED(AXP809, RTC_LDO, "rtc_ldo", "ips", 1800),
+	AXP_DESC_SW(AXP809, SW, "sw", "swin", AXP22X_PWR_OUT_CTRL2, BIT(6)),
+};
+
 static int axp20x_set_dcdc_freq(struct platform_device *pdev, u32 dcdcfreq)
 {
 	struct axp20x_dev *axp20x = dev_get_drvdata(pdev->dev.parent);
@@ -245,6 +300,7 @@ static int axp20x_set_dcdc_freq(struct platform_device *pdev, u32 dcdcfreq)
 		break;
 	case AXP221_ID:
 	case AXP223_ID:
+	case AXP809_ID:
 		min = 1800;
 		max = 4050;
 		def = 3000;
@@ -324,6 +380,7 @@ static int axp20x_set_dcdc_workmode(struct regulator_dev *rdev, int id, u32 work
 
 	case AXP221_ID:
 	case AXP223_ID:
+	case AXP809_ID:
 		if (id < AXP22X_DCDC1 || id > AXP22X_DCDC5)
 			return -EINVAL;
 
@@ -352,8 +409,8 @@ static int axp20x_regulator_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 	};
 	int ret, i, nregulators;
 	u32 workmode;
-	const char *axp22x_dc1_name = axp22x_regulators[AXP22X_DCDC1].name;
-	const char *axp22x_dc5_name = axp22x_regulators[AXP22X_DCDC5].name;
+	const char *dcdc1_name = axp22x_regulators[AXP22X_DCDC1].name;
+	const char *dcdc5_name = axp22x_regulators[AXP22X_DCDC5].name;
 
 	switch (axp20x->variant) {
 	case AXP202_ID:
@@ -366,6 +423,10 @@ static int axp20x_regulator_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 		regulators = axp22x_regulators;
 		nregulators = AXP22X_REG_ID_MAX;
 		break;
+	case AXP809_ID:
+		regulators = axp809_regulators;
+		nregulators = AXP809_REG_ID_MAX;
+		break;
 	default:
 		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Unsupported AXP variant: %ld\n",
 			axp20x->variant);
@@ -388,22 +449,22 @@ static int axp20x_regulator_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 		 * part of this loop to see where we save the DT defined
 		 * name.
 		 */
-		if (regulators == axp22x_regulators) {
-			if (i == AXP22X_DC1SW) {
-				new_desc = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev,
-							sizeof(*desc),
-							GFP_KERNEL);
-				*new_desc = regulators[i];
-				new_desc->supply_name = axp22x_dc1_name;
-				desc = new_desc;
-			} else if (i == AXP22X_DC5LDO) {
-				new_desc = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev,
-							sizeof(*desc),
-							GFP_KERNEL);
-				*new_desc = regulators[i];
-				new_desc->supply_name = axp22x_dc5_name;
-				desc = new_desc;
-			}
+		if ((regulators == axp22x_regulators && i == AXP22X_DC1SW) ||
+		    (regulators == axp809_regulators && i == AXP809_DC1SW)) {
+			new_desc = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*desc),
+						GFP_KERNEL);
+			*new_desc = regulators[i];
+			new_desc->supply_name = dcdc1_name;
+			desc = new_desc;
+		}
+
+		if ((regulators == axp22x_regulators && i == AXP22X_DC5LDO) ||
+		    (regulators == axp809_regulators && i == AXP809_DC5LDO)) {
+			new_desc = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*desc),
+						GFP_KERNEL);
+			*new_desc = regulators[i];
+			new_desc->supply_name = dcdc5_name;
+			desc = new_desc;
 		}
 
 		rdev = devm_regulator_register(&pdev->dev, desc, &config);
@@ -426,17 +487,17 @@ static int axp20x_regulator_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 		/*
 		 * Save AXP22X DCDC1 / DCDC5 regulator names for later.
 		 */
-		if (regulators == axp22x_regulators) {
-			/* Can we use rdev->constraints->name instead? */
-			if (i == AXP22X_DCDC1)
-				of_property_read_string(rdev->dev.of_node,
-							"regulator-name",
-							&axp22x_dc1_name);
-			else if (i == AXP22X_DCDC5)
-				of_property_read_string(rdev->dev.of_node,
-							"regulator-name",
-							&axp22x_dc5_name);
-		}
+		if ((regulators == axp22x_regulators && i == AXP22X_DCDC1) ||
+		    (regulators == axp809_regulators && i == AXP809_DCDC1))
+			of_property_read_string(rdev->dev.of_node,
+						"regulator-name",
+						&dcdc1_name);
+
+		if ((regulators == axp22x_regulators && i == AXP22X_DCDC5) ||
+		    (regulators == axp809_regulators && i == AXP809_DCDC5))
+			of_property_read_string(rdev->dev.of_node,
+						"regulator-name",
+						&dcdc5_name);
 	}
 
 	return 0;
-- 
2.8.1

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1410481

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

On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 12:23:19AM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> The X-Powers AXP809 PMIC has a similar set of regulators as the AXP221,
> though a few LDOs were removed, and a new switch output added. Like the
> AXP221, AXP809 also has DC1SW and DC5LDO, which are internally chained
> to DCDC1 and DCDC5, respectively.
> 
> Add support for this new variant. Also remove the "axp22x_" prefix from
> DC1SW/DC5LDO supply handling code, as the AXP809 uses it as well.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org>
> ---

Please preserve tags when people review things.  Why wasn't this applied
when I originally reviewed it?

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

#1410739

On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 1:36 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 12:23:19AM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
>> The X-Powers AXP809 PMIC has a similar set of regulators as the AXP221,
>> though a few LDOs were removed, and a new switch output added. Like the
>> AXP221, AXP809 also has DC1SW and DC5LDO, which are internally chained
>> to DCDC1 and DCDC5, respectively.
>>
>> Add support for this new variant. Also remove the "axp22x_" prefix from
>> DC1SW/DC5LDO supply handling code, as the AXP809 uses it as well.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org>
>> ---
>
> Please preserve tags when people review things.  Why wasn't this applied
> when I originally reviewed it?

The mfd patches this one depended on were pushed around a week before
the merge window, about a month after you reviewed, merged, then backed
out this patch. There was no immutable branch either.

I thought it best to wait a cycle instead of rushing in a patch at the
last minute.

Regards
ChenYu

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

#1412103

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

On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 10:03:42AM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:

> The mfd patches this one depended on were pushed around a week before
> the merge window, about a month after you reviewed, merged, then backed
> out this patch. There was no immutable branch either.

Why did it get backed out?

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

#1412125

On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 6:27 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 10:03:42AM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
>
>> The mfd patches this one depended on were pushed around a week before
>> the merge window, about a month after you reviewed, merged, then backed
>> out this patch. There was no immutable branch either.
>
> Why did it get backed out?

Because of missing compile dependencies on the mfd bits, which weren't
merged yet.

ChenYu

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

#1412229

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

On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 07:05:22PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 6:27 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:

> >> The mfd patches this one depended on were pushed around a week before
> >> the merge window, about a month after you reviewed, merged, then backed
> >> out this patch. There was no immutable branch either.

> > Why did it get backed out?

> Because of missing compile dependencies on the mfd bits, which weren't
> merged yet.

No, what I'm asking is why didn't it get merge along with the MFD bits?

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

#1412275

On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 9:25 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 07:05:22PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 6:27 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
>
>> >> The mfd patches this one depended on were pushed around a week before
>> >> the merge window, about a month after you reviewed, merged, then backed
>> >> out this patch. There was no immutable branch either.
>
>> > Why did it get backed out?
>
>> Because of missing compile dependencies on the mfd bits, which weren't
>> merged yet.
>
> No, what I'm asking is why didn't it get merge along with the MFD bits?

I had asked Lee to push an immutable branch for you to merge this patch
on top of. Obviously that did not come through. Lee did not merge this
patch with the mfd bits either.

So unfortunately I do not have a proper answer for you. Sorry.


Regards
ChenYu

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web