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


Groups > linux.kernel > #1456754 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] regulator: qcom_rpm-regulator: Add support for pm8018 rpm regulator

Started byStephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
First post2016-08-05 00:10 +0200
Last post2016-08-05 00:10 +0200
Articles 1 — 1 participant

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 v3 4/4] regulator: qcom_rpm-regulator: Add support for  pm8018 rpm regulator Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org> - 2016-08-05 00:10 +0200

#1456754 — Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] regulator: qcom_rpm-regulator: Add support for pm8018 rpm regulator

FromStephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
Date2016-08-05 00:10 +0200
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 4/4] regulator: qcom_rpm-regulator: Add support for pm8018 rpm regulator
Message-ID<s2yZX-7nK-21@gated-at.bofh.it>
On 07/19/2016 06:51 AM, Neil Armstrong wrote:
> In order to support eh Qualcomm MDM9615 SoC, add support for the

s/eh/the/

> PM8018 RPM regulator in the qcom_rpm-regulator driver.
>
> Acked-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com>
>
> diff --git a/drivers/regulator/qcom_rpm-regulator.c b/drivers/regulator/qcom_rpm-regulator.c
> index e254272..0734a5f 100644
> --- a/drivers/regulator/qcom_rpm-regulator.c
> +++ b/drivers/regulator/qcom_rpm-regulator.c
> @@ -70,6 +70,40 @@ struct qcom_rpm_reg {
>  	bool supports_force_mode_bypass;
>  };
>  
> +static struct rpm_reg_parts rpm8018_ldo_parts = {
> +	.request_len	= 2,
> +	.uV		= { 0, 0x007FFFFF,  0},
> +	.pd		= { 0, 0x00800000, 23},
> +	.pc		= { 0, 0x0F000000, 24},
> +	.pf		= { 0, 0xF0000000, 28},
> +	.ip		= { 1, 0x000003FF,  0},
> +	.ia		= { 1, 0x000FFC00, 10},
> +	.fm		= { 1, 0x00700000, 20},
> +};
> +
> +static struct rpm_reg_parts rpm8018_smps_parts = {
> +	.request_len	= 2,
> +	.uV		= {  0, 0x007FFFFF,  0},
> +	.pd		= {  0, 0x00800000, 23},
> +	.pc		= {  0, 0x0F000000, 24},
> +	.pf		= {  0, 0xF0000000, 28},
> +	.ip		= {  1, 0x000003FF,  0},
> +	.ia		= {  1, 0x000FFC00, 10},
> +	.fm		= {  1, 0x00700000, 20},
> +	.pm		= {  1, 0x00800000, 23},
> +	.freq		= {  1, 0x1F000000, 24},
> +	.freq_clk_src	= {  1, 0x60000000, 29},
> +};
> +
> +static struct rpm_reg_parts rpm8018_switch_parts = {
> +	.request_len	= 1,
> +	.enable_state	= {  0, 0x00000001,  0},
> +	.pd		= {  0, 0x00000002,  1},
> +	.pc		= {  0, 0x0000003C,  2},
> +	.pf		= {  0, 0x000003C0,  6},
> +	.hpm		= {  0, 0x00000C00, 10},
> +};
> +

These are all the same as the rpm8960 ones, so why don't we reuse those
structures?

>  static const struct rpm_reg_parts rpm8660_ldo_parts = {
>  	.request_len    = 2,
>  	.mV             = { 0, 0x00000FFF,  0 },
> @@ -448,6 +482,44 @@ static struct regulator_ops switch_ops = {
>  };
>  
>  /*
> + * PM8018 regulators
> + */
> +static const struct qcom_rpm_reg pm8018_pldo = {
> +	.desc.linear_ranges = pldo_ranges,
> +	.desc.n_linear_ranges = ARRAY_SIZE(pldo_ranges),
> +	.desc.n_voltages = 161,
> +	.desc.ops = &uV_ops,
> +	.parts = &rpm8018_ldo_parts,
> +	.supports_force_mode_auto = false,
> +	.supports_force_mode_bypass = false,
> +};
> +
> +static const struct qcom_rpm_reg pm8018_nldo = {
> +	.desc.linear_ranges = nldo_ranges,
> +	.desc.n_linear_ranges = ARRAY_SIZE(nldo_ranges),
> +	.desc.n_voltages = 64,
> +	.desc.ops = &uV_ops,
> +	.parts = &rpm8018_ldo_parts,
> +	.supports_force_mode_auto = false,
> +	.supports_force_mode_bypass = false,
> +};
> +
> +static const struct qcom_rpm_reg pm8018_smps = {
> +	.desc.linear_ranges = smps_ranges,
> +	.desc.n_linear_ranges = ARRAY_SIZE(smps_ranges),
> +	.desc.n_voltages = 154,
> +	.desc.ops = &uV_ops,
> +	.parts = &rpm8018_smps_parts,
> +	.supports_force_mode_auto = false,
> +	.supports_force_mode_bypass = false,
> +};
> +
> +static const struct qcom_rpm_reg pm8018_switch = {
> +	.desc.ops = &switch_ops,
> +	.parts = &rpm8018_switch_parts,
> +};
> +

These are all the same as the pm8921 ones too? So just use those instead?

We should probably rethink this design and have these structures based
on PMIC derivatives instead of SoCs because things are quite similar
across many PMICs.

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project

[toc] | [standalone]


Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel


csiph-web