On 04/15/2016 10:21 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
On Friday 15 April 2016 09:54 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 04/12/2016 08:56 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
NVIDIA Tegra210 supports some of the IO interface which can operate
at 1.8V or 3.3V I/O rail voltage levels. SW needs to configure
Tegra PMC register to set different voltage level of IO interface based
on IO rail voltage from power supply i.e. power regulators.
Add APIs to set and get IO rail voltage from the client driver.
diff --git a/drivers/soc/tegra/pmc.c b/drivers/soc/tegra/pmc.c
+static struct tegra_io_rail_voltage_bit_info
tegra210_io_rail_voltage_info[] = {
+ TEGRA_IO_RAIL_VOLTAGE(SDMMC1, 12),
+ TEGRA_IO_RAIL_VOLTAGE(SDMMC3, 13),
+ TEGRA_IO_RAIL_VOLTAGE(AUDIO_HV, 18),
+ TEGRA_IO_RAIL_VOLTAGE(DMIC, 20),
+ TEGRA_IO_RAIL_VOLTAGE(GPIO, 21),
+ TEGRA_IO_RAIL_VOLTAGE(SPI_HV, 23),
+};
That table is likely specific to Tegra210, yet ...
+static int tegra_io_rail_voltage_get_bit_pos(int io_rail_id)
+int tegra_io_rail_voltage_set(int io_rail, int val)
+int tegra_io_rail_voltage_get(int io_rail)
... these functions are all named as if they are generic. Presumably
they will indeed be needed for the next chip too? How will you prevent
their use, or turn these functions into no-ops, or return errors, on
other SoCs?
It will return error for the Soc which does to support or the parameter
to the apis which are not applicable.
Are you saying that will happen in the current code? I don't see where
there's anything that validates that.
Or does "will" mean "I will do that in the next patch revision"?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
