Hi,
On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 11:47 PM Johan Hovold <johan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 09:49:46AM -0700, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> > Prior to commit efb0cb50c427 ("regulator: qcom-rpmh: Implement
> > get_optimum_mode(), not set_load()") several boards were able to
> > change their regulator mode even though they had nothing listed in
> > "regulator-allowed-modes". After that commit (and fixes [1]) we'll be
> > stuck at the initial mode. Discussion of this (again, see [1]) has
> > resulted in the decision that the old dts files were wrong and should
> > be fixed to fully restore old functionality.
> >
> > This series attempts to fix everyone. I've kept each board in a
> > separate patch to make stable / backports work easier.
>
> Should you also update the bindings so that this can be caught during
> devicetree validation? That is, to always require
> "regulator-allowed-modes" when "regulator-allow-set-load" is specified.
Yeah, it's probably a good idea. I'm happy to review a patch that does
that. I'm already quite a few patches deep of submitting random
cleanups because someone mentioned it in a code review. ;-) That's
actually how I got in this mess to begin with. The RPMH change was in
response to a request in a different code review. ...and that came
about in a code review that was posted in response to a comment about
how awkward setting regulator loads was... Need to get back to my day
job.
In any case, I think these dts patches are ready to land now.
> Perhaps at least for RPMh as it seemed you found some cases were this
> wasn't currently needed (even if that sounded like an Linux-specific
> implementation detail).
I think you're talking about the RPM vs. RPMH difference? It's
actually not Linux specific. In RPM the API to the "hardware"
(actually a remote processor) is to pass the load. In RPMH the API to
the hardware is to pass a mode. This is why RPMH has
"regulator-allowed-modes" and "regulator-initial-mode". Both RPM and
RPMH have "regulator-allow-set-load" though...
-Doug
