On 05/17/2018 02:22 PM, Doug Anderson wrote: > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 7:28 PM, David Collins <collinsd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> +- qcom,regulator-initial-microvolt >> + Usage: optional; VRM regulators only >> + Value type: <u32> >> + Definition: Specifies the initial voltage in microvolts to request for a >> + VRM regulator. > > Now that Mark has landed the patch adding support for the > -ENOTRECOVERABLE error code from get_voltage() / get_voltage_sel(), do > we still need the qcom,regulator-initial-microvolt property? Yes, this is still needed. The -ENOTRECOVERABLE patch ensures that qcom-rpmh-regulator devices can be registered even if qcom,regulator-initial-microvolt is not specified. However, that will result in the regulators being configured for the minimum voltage supported in the DT specified min/max range. The qcom,regulator-initial-microvolt property allows us to set a specific voltage that is larger than the min constraint. > If this is really still needed, can it be moved to the regulator core? I'm not opposed to the idea, but I think that Mark is [1]: >> Do you have a preference for qcom,regulator-initial-microvolt vs a generic >> framework supported regulator-initial-microvolt property for configuring a >> specific voltage at registration time? We'll need to have support for one >> or the other in order for the qcom_rpmh-regulator driver to be functional. > > This is basically specific to Qualcomm, I can't off hand think of any > other devices with similar issues. >> +- regulator-initial-mode >> + Usage: optional; VRM regulators only >> + Value type: <u32> >> + Definition: Specifies the initial mode to request for a VRM regulator. >> + Supported values are RPMH_REGULATOR_MODE_* which are defined >> + in [1] (i.e. 0 to 3). This property may be specified even >> + if the regulator-allow-set-load property is not specified. > > Every time I read the above I wonder why you're documenting a standard > regulator regulator property in your bindings. ...then I realize it's > because you're doing it because you want to explicitly document what > the valid modes are. I wonder if it makes sense to just put a > reference somewhere else in this document to go look at the header > file where these are all nicely documented. Isn't that what the [1] in the above snippet is currently doing. Further down in qcom,rpmh-regulator.txt is this line: +[1] include/dt-bindings/regulator/qcom,rpmh-regulator.h > Speaking of documenting things like that, it might be worth finding > somewhere in this doc to mention that the "bob" regulator on PMI8998 > can support "regulator-allow-bypass". That tidbit got lost when we > moved to the standard regulator bindings for bypass. I suppose that I could add something like this: +- regulator-allow-bypass + Usage: optional; BOB type VRM regulators only + Value type: <empty> + Definition: See [2] for details. ... +[2]: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator.txt However, I don't want the patch to get NACKed because it is defining a property that is already defined in the common regulator.txt file. >> +- qcom,allowed-drms-modes >> + Usage: required if regulator-allow-set-load is specified; >> + VRM regulators only >> + Value type: <prop-encoded-array> >> + Definition: A list of integers specifying the PMIC regulator modes which >> + can be configured at runtime based upon consumer load needs. >> + Supported values are RPMH_REGULATOR_MODE_* which are defined >> + in [1] (i.e. 0 to 3). > > Why is this still here? You moved it to the core regulator framework, > right? It's still in your examples too. Shouldn't this be removed? > It looks like the driver still needs this and it needs to be an exact > duplicate of the common binding. That doesn't seem right... The qcom,allowed-drms-modes property supports a different feature than the regulator-allowed-modes property accepted in [2]. The latter specifies the modes that may be used at all (e.g. in regulator_set_mode() calls) and it lists the mode values in an unordered fashion. qcom,allowed-drms-modes defines a specific subset of the possible allowed modes that should be set based on DRMS (e.g. in regulator_set_load() calls). Its values are listed in a specific order and must match 1-to-1 with qcom,drms-mode-max-microamps entries. It would probably be good to change the name of the property from qcom,allowed-drms-modes to qcom,regulator-drms-modes. >> +- qcom,drms-mode-max-microamps >> + Usage: required if regulator-allow-set-load is specified; >> + VRM regulators only >> + Value type: <prop-encoded-array> >> + Definition: A list of integers specifying the maximum allowed load >> + current in microamps for each of the modes listed in >> + qcom,allowed-drms-modes (matched 1-to-1 in order). Elements >> + must be specified in order from lowest to highest value. > > Any reason this can't go into the regulator core? You'd basically > just take the existing concept of rpmh_regulator_vrm_set_load() and > put it in the core. This could be implemented in the core via new constraint elements parsed in of_regulator and a helper function to specify in regulator_ops. However, I'm not sure about the wide-spread applicability of this feature. I'd prefer to leave it in the driver unless Mark would like me to add it into the core. >> +- qcom,headroom-microvolt >> + Usage: optional; VRM regulators only >> + Value type: <u32> >> + Definition: Specifies the headroom voltage in microvolts to request for >> + a VRM regulator. RPMh hardware automatically ensures that >> + the parent of this regulator outputs a voltage high enough >> + to satisfy the requested headroom. Supported values are >> + 0 to 511000. > > I'm curious: is this a voted-for value, or a global value? > > Said another way: the whole point of RPMh is that there may be more > than one processor that needs the same rails, right? So the AP might > request 1.1 V for a rail and the modem might request 1.3 V. RPMh > would decide to pick the higher of those two (1.3 V), but if the modem > said it no longer needs the rail it will drop down to 1.1 V. > > ...and as an example of why the headroom needs to be in hardware, if > the source voltage was normally 1.4 V and the headroom was 200 mV then > the hardware would need to know to bump up the source voltage to 1.5V > during the period of of time that the modem wants the rail at 1.3V. > > So my question is: do the AP and modem in the above situation > separately vote for headroom? How is it aggregated? ...or is it a > global value and this sets the headroom for all clients of RPMh? It > would be interesting to document this as it might help with figuring > out how this value should be set. The headroom voltage voting is supported in hardware per-regulator and per-master (AP, modem, etc). The headroom voltage and output voltage are each aggregated (using max) per-regulator across masters. If the aggregated enable state for a regulator is on, then the aggregated output voltage and headroom voltage are added together and applied as a min constraint on the parent's output voltage (if there is a parent). >> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/regulator/qcom,rpmh-regulator.h b/include/dt-bindings/regulator/qcom,rpmh-regulator.h >> new file mode 100644 >> index 0000000..4378c4b >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/regulator/qcom,rpmh-regulator.h >> +/* >> + * These mode constants may be used for regulator-initial-mode and >> + * qcom,allowed-drms-modes properties of an RPMh regulator device tree node. > > Technically also for your new "regulator-allowed-modes". Maybe just > say that they're used anywhere a regulator mode is needed in this > driver and give regulator-initial-mode as an example? Sure, I'll update this description. Take care, David [1]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/4/24/960 [2]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/5/11/696 -- The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
