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


Groups > linux.kernel > #1368507

Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: DT: Add support to scale ramp delay based on platform behavior

From Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com>
Newsgroups linux.kernel
Subject Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: DT: Add support to scale ramp delay based on platform behavior
Date 2016-03-31 20:00 +0200
Message-ID <riP2W-ac-19@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References (6 earlier) <risSK-OW-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <riF3z-1p0-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <riO6S-7XR-27@gated-at.bofh.it> <riOzV-8pW-37@gated-at.bofh.it> <riOTg-6L-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw


On Thursday 31 March 2016 11:17 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> * PGP Signed by an unknown key
>
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 10:43:03PM +0530, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>
>> We need two properties, one what we measured in platform and second one for
>> what we want to program PMIC. This is for the case where vendor advertised
>> ramp delay is not same as measured due to platform design.
> What makes you say that we need two properties?
>
>> Based on discussion, regulator-ramp-delay is for measured ramp delay in
>> platform. So we will need another property for configuring PMIC.
> So as well as delaying in the kernel to cover the ramp time you want to
> configure something in the PMIC?  What are you trying to configure in
> the PMIC?  How will the PMIC driver meaningfully interpret a generic
> property given that the whole point here is that the PMIC is unable to
> deliver in spec behaviour?
>

Here is the case,
PMIC supports 2 ramp time configurations 5mv/us and 100mV/us. This is 
supported with some specific capacitance in rail output per 
recommendation from PMIC Vendor. This recommendation is generic in nature.
We got PMIC with some non-desired default configuration i.e. 5mV/us. Our 
HW team recommend to configure the PMIC for 100mV/us.

HW and chip team did simulation with tegra and PMIC and found that the 
board needs more capacitance then what Vendor recommended for proper 
signal conditioning on interface. So they put the difference 
capactitance value and this causes deviation in ramp delay from 
advertised value. In out design, we measured the ramp time as 50mv/us 
when PMIC is configured for 100mV/us.

So for all settling time, we need to use the ramp as 50mV/us.

 From DT, I will provide regulator-ramp-delay as 50mv/us.

But I do not have property for saying 100mv/us for PMIC configurations 
and this is what makes need of 2nd property.

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: DT: Add support to scale ramp delay based  on platform behavior Bjorn Andersson <bjorn@kryo.se> - 2016-03-19 05:40 +0100
  Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: DT: Add support to scale ramp delay based  on platform behavior Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com> - 2016-03-19 09:50 +0100
    Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: DT: Add support to scale ramp delay based  on platform behavior Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com> - 2016-03-30 15:50 +0200
      Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: DT: Add support to scale ramp delay based  on platform behavior Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> - 2016-03-30 20:20 +0200
        Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: DT: Add support to scale ramp delay based  on platform behavior Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com> - 2016-03-31 09:20 +0200
          Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: DT: Add support to scale ramp delay based  on platform behavior Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> - 2016-03-31 19:00 +0200
            Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: DT: Add support to scale ramp delay based  on platform behavior Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com> - 2016-03-31 19:30 +0200
              Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: DT: Add support to scale ramp delay based  on platform behavior Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> - 2016-03-31 19:50 +0200
                Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: DT: Add support to scale ramp delay based  on platform behavior Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com> - 2016-03-31 20:00 +0200
                Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: DT: Add support to scale ramp delay based  on platform behavior Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> - 2016-03-31 20:40 +0200
                Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: DT: Add support to scale ramp delay based  on platform behavior Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> - 2016-03-31 20:50 +0200
                Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: DT: Add support to scale ramp delay based  on platform behavior Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com> - 2016-03-31 21:00 +0200
                Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: DT: Add support to scale ramp delay based  on platform behavior Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> - 2016-03-31 21:10 +0200
                Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: DT: Add support to scale ramp delay based  on platform behavior Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com> - 2016-03-31 21:10 +0200
                Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: DT: Add support to scale ramp delay based  on platform behavior Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> - 2016-03-31 21:30 +0200
                Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: DT: Add support to scale ramp delay based  on platform behavior Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com> - 2016-03-31 22:00 +0200
                Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: DT: Add support to scale ramp delay based  on platform behavior Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> - 2016-03-31 22:50 +0200
                Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: DT: Add support to scale ramp delay based  on platform behavior Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com> - 2016-04-01 09:30 +0200
                Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: DT: Add support to scale ramp delay based  on platform behavior Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> - 2016-04-01 18:20 +0200
                Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: DT: Add support to scale ramp delay based  on platform behavior Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com> - 2016-03-31 20:50 +0200

csiph-web