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

Groups > linux.kernel > #1611216 > unrolled thread

Re: [RFC 4/8] regulator: core: Check enabling bypass respects constraints

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: [RFC 4/8] regulator: core: Check enabling bypass respects  constraints Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> - 2017-03-28 19:00 +0200
    Re: [RFC 4/8] regulator: core: Check enabling bypass respects  constraints Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> - 2017-04-06 21:00 +0200
      Re: [RFC 4/8] regulator: core: Check enabling bypass respects  constraints Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> - 2017-04-07 13:30 +0200

#1611216 — Re: [RFC 4/8] regulator: core: Check enabling bypass respects constraints

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

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 03:39:41PM +0300, Leonard Crestez wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-03-24 at 12:52 +0000, Mark Brown wrote:

Please fix your mail client to word wrap within paragraphs at something
substantially less than 80 columns.  Doing this makes your messages much
easier to read and reply to.

> > to the supply.  Usually bypass is used for low power retention modes
> > with different settings to those used in normal operation that wouldn't
> > be desired in normal operation, if we were going to have constraints for
> > this I'd expect a separate set used during bypass.

> In this particular case it's not possible to set constraints on the parent
> regulator so that both ldo-enable and ldo-bypass modes work. The maximum allowed
> voltage for ldo-bypass is lower than the minimum required to support the chip at
> max frequency wit ldo-enable.

If things are really so sensitive that you can't bypass without lowering
the voltage then it's hard to see how you can safely transition into and
out of bypass mode.  

> I'm not sure I understand why you are against applying constraints to the parent
> when in bypass mode, it seems like the obvious thing to do if you want to
> support flexible configuration. The check I introduced is probably not enough to
> cover all cases, for example it would still be possible to explicitly change
> parent voltage afterwards.

To repeat what I said previously the whole point of bypassing is to not
do regulation and generally the constraints in the unregulated idle case
are substantially more relaxed.  This would break use cases relying on
the existing behaviour which wouldn't expect to affect the parent
voltage at all, either stopping things working or making them less
efficient by needlessly regulating the voltage down which defeats the
main point of bypassing.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1618269

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

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:49:55PM +0300, Leonard Crestez wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-03-28 at 17:47 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:

> > To repeat what I said previously the whole point of bypassing is to not
> > do regulation and generally the constraints in the unregulated idle case
> > are substantially more relaxed.  This would break use cases relying on
> > the existing behaviour which wouldn't expect to affect the parent
> > voltage at all, either stopping things working or making them less
> > efficient by needlessly regulating the voltage down which defeats the
> > main point of bypassing.

> So what you want is to prevent voltage changes unless strictly
> required, even lowering? What I want is to get the minimum voltage in
> the SOC because that's where power is being consumed.

So your end goal here is to bypass a regulator which is forced into your
system design by being integrated into the SoC which isn't able to
regulate down to a low enough voltage for your use case?  I guess one
question is if you need to use the regulator at all?

> It's not at all obvious that in bypass mode the output constraints of a
> regulator need not be respected by the core. I expected the opposite,
> this is something that should be documented.

SubmittingPatches...  Bear in mind that most regulators are fixed
voltage in a given system so bypass would be very difficult to use if it
tried to pass the constraints upstream.

> But if the bypassed regulator has a downstream consumer then it's
> requirements should definitely still be met in bypass mode, right? I
> could set my maximum voltage directly from cpufreq in that case.

What we're interpreting bypass mode as meaning is "stop regulating".
There will still be some limits but we're expecting them to be enforced
in the extremes of the constraints in the parent regulators.

> Or should a bypassed regulator ignore all other requests? One of the
> behaviors that this patch series relies on is that calling set_voltage
> on a bypassed regulator propagates this request to the supply and picks
> the minimum voltage there. An alternative implementation would be to

Yes, the expectation is that if anything is being changed it won't have
any effect until regulation is reenabled but we're not particularly
expecting much activity on bypassed regulators.

> call set_voltage directly on the supply regulator by changing the
> "{arm,soc,pu}-supply" references in DT to point to the PMIC instead.
> Would that be better?

That's more what's expected here.

> Both approaches work. Relying on propagation feels like it is the
> "right way" to handle this, even if it's harder to get right and the
> regulator core does not entirely support it. But it's possible that
> this is based on a misunderstanding of what "bypass" is actually
> supposed to do.

Another option would be to add a regulator configuration which allowed
the regulator to transparently go into bypass mode if the parent could
do things directly, only enabling regulation if the parent couldn't
support.  That would mean you'd loose the supply cleanup function which
is typically part of why there are LDOs in the system but it sounds like
you're OK with that in at least your use case.

We could also perhaps have a way to set the regulator into permanent
bypass mode from the constraints for use cases that just never need it
and then remap the supply relationship at probe time (which avoids any
special runtime casing) for something even simpler.

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

#1618683

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

On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 01:51:52PM +0300, Leonard Crestez wrote:

> It currently seems to work how I expect but from your statement it's
> not clear if it's entirely intentional.

The current behaviour of bypassed regulators is intentional.

> > > Or should a bypassed regulator ignore all other requests? One of the
> > > behaviors that this patch series relies on is that calling set_voltage
> > > on a bypassed regulator propagates this request to the supply and picks
> > > the minimum voltage there. An alternative implementation would be to

> > Yes, the expectation is that if anything is being changed it won't have
> > any effect until regulation is reenabled but we're not particularly
> > expecting much activity on bypassed regulators.

> OK, so it is up to consumers to ensure the supply voltage is acceptable
> before allowing bypass. If they want to do something clever they should
> register as a consumer to the supply as well.

No, that's not expected either - one or the other is fine but both isn't
expected.  What you're looking for here is something logically different
to bypass even if the hardware implementation ends up the same.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web