Re: [PATCH v5 09/18] arm64: dts: qcom: qrb5165-rb5: model the PMU of the QCA6391

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 7:03 PM Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 09:32:06PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > +                     vreg_pmu_aon_0p59: ldo1 {
> > +                             regulator-name = "vreg_pmu_aon_0p59";
> > +                             regulator-min-microvolt = <540000>;
> > +                             regulator-max-microvolt = <840000>;
> > +                     };
> That's a *very* wide voltage range for a supply that's got a name ending
> in _0_p59 which sounds a lot like it should be fixed at 0.59V.
> Similarly for a bunch of the other supplies, and I'm not seeing any
> evidence that the consumers do any voltage changes here?  There doesn't
> appear to be any logic here, I'm not convinced these are validated or
> safe constraints.

No, the users don't request any regulators (or rather: software
representations thereof) because - as per the cover letter - no
regulators are created by the PMU driver. This is what is physically
on the board - as the schematics and the datasheet define it. I took
the values from the docs verbatim. In C, we create a power sequencing
provider which doesn't use the regulator framework at all.


[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [Linux for Sparc]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux