Hi Lee,
On Tue, 7 Jul 2015 16:06:50 +0100
Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> * Add support for continuous-voltage mode
> * Put more meat on the bones with regards to voltage-table mode
> * Sort out formatting for ease of consumption
>
> Cc: devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> .../bindings/regulator/pwm-regulator.txt | 68 ++++++++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 56 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/pwm-regulator.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/pwm-regulator.txt
> index ce91f61..892b366 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/pwm-regulator.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/pwm-regulator.txt
> @@ -1,27 +1,71 @@
> -pwm regulator bindings
> +Bindings for the Generic PWM Regulator
> +======================================
> +
> +Currently supports 2 modes of operation:
> +
> +voltage-table: When in this mode, a voltage table (See below) of
> + predefined voltage <=> duty-cycle values must be
> + provided via DT. Limitations are that the regulator can
> + only operate at the voltages supplied in the table.
> + Intermediary duty-cycle values which would normally
> + allow finer grained voltage selection are ignored and
> + rendered useless. Although more control is given to
> + the user if the assumptions made in continuous-voltage
> + mode do not reign true.
> +
> +continuous-voltage: This mode uses the regulator's maximum and minimum
> + supplied voltages specified in the
> + regulator-{min,max}-microvolt properties to calculate
> + appropriate duty-cycle values. This allows for a much
> + more fine grained solution when compared with
> + voltage-table mode above. This solution does make an
> + assumption that a %50 duty-cycle value will cause the
> + regulator voltage to run at half way between the
> + supplied max_uV and min_uV values.
Do we really have to specify a new property to select the mode ?
The existing DT will have to be modified anyway, so maybe we can just
add a new compatible string differentiate those two modes.
Also note that if you're doing linear interpolation between the points
specified in the voltage-table instead of doing it on the min -> max
values, you wouldn't have to modify the binding.
>
> Required properties:
> -- compatible: Should be "pwm-regulator"
> -- pwms: OF device-tree PWM specification (see PWM binding pwm.txt)
> -- voltage-table: voltage and duty table, include 2 members in each set of
> - brackets, first one is voltage(unit: uv), the next is duty(unit: percent)
> +--------------------
> +- compatible: Should be "pwm-regulator"
> +
> +- pwms: PWM specification (See: ../pwm/pwm.txt)
> +
> +One of these must be provided:
> +- voltage-table: Voltage and Duty-Cycle table consisting of 2 cells
> + First cell is voltage in microvolts (uV)
> + Second cell is duty-cycle in percent (%)
> +
> +- max-duty-cycle: Maximum Duty-Cycle value -- this will normally be
> + 255 (0xff) for an 8 bit PWM device
Why are you introducing another random unit. What is max-duty-cycle
really encoding (I guess it has to do with the precision you're
expecting, but I'm not sure) ?
The PWM framework is using nanoseconds, the existing pwm-regulator
binding is using percents. Shouldn't we reuse one of them (I
guess you changed that because the percent unit was not precise
enough) ?
Best Regards,
Boris
--
Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com
--
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
