On 05/09/2019 09:21, Rob Herring wrote:
> +Steven
>
> On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 1:30 PM Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> The panfrost driver requests a supply using regulator_get_optional()
>> but both the name of the supply and the usage pattern suggest that it is
>> being used for the main power for the device and is not at all optional
>> for the device for function, there is no meaningful handling for absent
>> supplies. Such regulators should use the vanilla regulator_get()
>> interface, it will ensure that even if a supply is not described in the
>> system integration one will be provided in software.
>
> I guess commits e21dd290881b ("drm/panfrost: Enable devfreq to work
> without regulator") and c90f30812a79 ("drm/panfrost: Add missing check
> for pfdev->regulator")
> in -next should be reverted or partially reverted?
Ah, I didn't realise that regulator_get() will return a dummy regulator
if none is provided in the DT. In theory that seems like a nicer
solution to my two commits. However there's still a problem - the dummy
regulator returned from regulator_get() reports errors when
regulator_set_voltage() is called. So I get errors like this:
[ 299.861165] panfrost e82c0000.mali: Cannot set voltage 1100000 uV
[ 299.867294] devfreq devfreq0: dvfs failed with (-22) error
(And therefore the frequency isn't being changed)
Ideally we want a dummy regulator that will silently ignore any
regulator_set_voltage() calls.
Steve
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
