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 8:59 PM Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 07:48:20PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > 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

Because it's an error, it should have been 640000. Thanks for spotting it.

> > > 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 above makes no sense.  How can constraints be "what is physically on
> the board", particularly variable constrants when there isn't even a
> consumer?  What values are you taking from which documentation?

The operating conditions for PMU outputs. I took them from a
confidential datasheet. There's a table for input constraints and
possible output values.

And what do you mean by there not being any consumers? The WLAN and BT
*are* the consumers.

> The cover letter and binding both claimed (buried after large amounts of
> changelog) that these PMUs were exposing regulators to consumers and the
> DTS puports to do exactly that...

Yes, but I'm not sure what the question is.

> > the values from the docs verbatim. In C, we create a power sequencing
> > provider which doesn't use the regulator framework at all.
> For something that doesn't use the regulator framework at all what
> appears to be a provider in patch 16 ("power: pwrseq: add a driver for
> the QCA6390 PMU module") seems to have a lot of regualtor API calls?

This driver is a power sequencing *provider* but also a regulator
*consumer*. It gets regulators from the host and exposes a power
sequencer to *its* consumers (WLAN and BT). On DT it exposes
regulators (LDO outputs of the PMU) but we don't instantiate them in


[Index of Archives]     [Bluez Devel]     [Linux Wireless Networking]     [Linux Wireless Personal Area Networking]     [Linux ATH6KL]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Media Drivers]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [Big List of Linux Books]

  Powered by Linux