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

Groups > linux.kernel > #1412104 > unrolled thread

[RFC PATCH v1 3/3] regulator: qcom_smd: add linear range to pm8941 lnldo

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

  [RFC PATCH v1 3/3] regulator: qcom_smd: add linear range to pm8941 lnldo Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org> - 2016-06-02 12:30 +0200
    Re: [RFC PATCH v1 3/3] regulator: qcom_smd: add linear range to  pm8941 lnldo Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> - 2016-06-02 16:50 +0200
      Re: [RFC PATCH v1 3/3] regulator: qcom_smd: add linear range to  pm8941 lnldo Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org> - 2016-06-02 17:00 +0200
        Re: [RFC PATCH v1 3/3] regulator: qcom_smd: add linear range to  pm8941 lnldo Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> - 2016-06-02 18:00 +0200
          Re: [RFC PATCH v1 3/3] regulator: qcom_smd: add linear range to  pm8941 lnldo Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org> - 2016-06-02 18:10 +0200
            Re: [RFC PATCH v1 3/3] regulator: qcom_smd: add linear range to  pm8941 lnldo Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> - 2016-06-02 18:30 +0200

#1412104 — [RFC PATCH v1 3/3] regulator: qcom_smd: add linear range to pm8941 lnldo

This patch converts a fixed voltage pm8941 lnldo to a single step
linear range regulator, so that we could use the same list_volatage
callback without BUG_ON from regulator core.

Signed-off-by: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>
---
 drivers/regulator/qcom_smd-regulator.c | 5 ++++-
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/regulator/qcom_smd-regulator.c b/drivers/regulator/qcom_smd-regulator.c
index b11b627..09c688d 100644
--- a/drivers/regulator/qcom_smd-regulator.c
+++ b/drivers/regulator/qcom_smd-regulator.c
@@ -246,7 +246,10 @@ static const struct regulator_desc pm8941_nldo = {
 };
 
 static const struct regulator_desc pm8941_lnldo = {
-	.fixed_uV = 1740000,
+	.linear_ranges = (struct regulator_linear_range[]) {
+		REGULATOR_LINEAR_RANGE(1740000, 0, 0, 1740000),
+	},
+	.n_linear_ranges = 1,
 	.n_voltages = 1,
 	.ops = &rpm_smps_ldo_ops,
 };
-- 
2.8.2

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1412323 — Re: [RFC PATCH v1 3/3] regulator: qcom_smd: add linear range to pm8941 lnldo

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

On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 11:23:16AM +0100, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
> This patch converts a fixed voltage pm8941 lnldo to a single step
> linear range regulator, so that we could use the same list_volatage
> callback without BUG_ON from regulator core.

Why is this better than using a separate set of ops for the driver?

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

#1412329 — Re: [RFC PATCH v1 3/3] regulator: qcom_smd: add linear range to pm8941 lnldo

On 02/06/16 15:49, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 11:23:16AM +0100, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
>> This patch converts a fixed voltage pm8941 lnldo to a single step
>> linear range regulator, so that we could use the same list_volatage
>> callback without BUG_ON from regulator core.
>
> Why is this better than using a separate set of ops for the driver?
Am ok either way, it would be just few more lines for separate set of ops.

--srini

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

#1412379 — Re: [RFC PATCH v1 3/3] regulator: qcom_smd: add linear range to pm8941 lnldo

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

On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 03:57:42PM +0100, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
> On 02/06/16 15:49, Mark Brown wrote:

> > Why is this better than using a separate set of ops for the driver?

> Am ok either way, it would be just few more lines for separate set of ops.

It's more natural to use a separate set of ops, and we can optimise a
few things if we know the regulator is a fixed voltage one.

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

#1412395 — Re: [RFC PATCH v1 3/3] regulator: qcom_smd: add linear range to pm8941 lnldo

On Thu 02 Jun 08:50 PDT 2016, Mark Brown wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 03:57:42PM +0100, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
> > On 02/06/16 15:49, Mark Brown wrote:
> 
> > > Why is this better than using a separate set of ops for the driver?
> 
> > Am ok either way, it would be just few more lines for separate set of ops.
> 
> It's more natural to use a separate set of ops, and we can optimise a
> few things if we know the regulator is a fixed voltage one.

In my view a fixed regulator is a thing that when you turn it on you get
a predefined voltage, but iirc we actually need to send of a set-voltage
request for the singly supported voltage on this ldo (which both
implementations do today...).

That's why I suggested Srini to do it this way, but maybe my
interpretation of "fixed" is inaccurate?

Regards,
Bjorn

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

#1412419 — Re: [RFC PATCH v1 3/3] regulator: qcom_smd: add linear range to pm8941 lnldo

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

On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 09:04:32AM -0700, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Thu 02 Jun 08:50 PDT 2016, Mark Brown wrote:

> > It's more natural to use a separate set of ops, and we can optimise a
> > few things if we know the regulator is a fixed voltage one.

> In my view a fixed regulator is a thing that when you turn it on you get
> a predefined voltage, but iirc we actually need to send of a set-voltage
> request for the singly supported voltage on this ldo (which both
> implementations do today...).

> That's why I suggested Srini to do it this way, but maybe my
> interpretation of "fixed" is inaccurate?

If it only supports one voltage then shouldn't we just tell it that
voltage once at startup?  Doing a call in the probe routine would be
fine, the framework doesn't need to know about that really.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web