On Wed, Dec 08, 2021 at 04:56:48PM -0800, David Collins wrote: > On 12/7/21 7:19 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 08:36:11PM +0530, Satya Priya Kakitapalli (Temp) wrote: > > that regulator. We absolutely can and do expect this to be board > > independent, it's a function of the design of the regulator. Sharing > > the input supply has no impact on this, the input voltage that the > > regulator needs just get fed into the requiremnts on the supply voltage. > The PM8008 LDOs are low noise LDOs intended to supply noise sensitive > camera sensor hardware. They can maintain output regulation with a > fixed headroom voltage. However, in order to guarantee high PSRR, the > headroom voltage must be scaled according to the peak load expected from > the each LDO on a given board. Thus, we included support for a DT > property to specify the headroom per LDO to meet noise requirements > across boards. Interesting... how much extra headroom are we talking about here? I'd be unsurprised to see this usually just quoted as part of the standard headroom requirement and this smells like the sort of thing that's going to be frequently misused. If the gains are something worth writing home about I'd think we should consider if it's better to support this dynamically at runtime based on load information and provide options for configuring the peak load information through DT instead for static configurations. That would fit in with the stuff we have for managing modes on DCDCs (which isn't really deployed but is there) and the API we have for allowing client drivers to indicate their load requirements at runtime that fits in with that. That'd allow us to only boost the headroom when it's really needed.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
