On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 2:31 PM Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 12:16:10PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > 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:
>
> > > > 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.
>
> That sounds like you're just putting the maximum range of voltages that
> the PMU can output in there. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of
> what the constraints are for, the constraints exist to specify what is
> safe on a specific board which will in essentially all cases be much
> more restricted. The regulator driver should describe whatever the PMU
> can support by itself, the constraints whatever is actually safe and
> functional on the specific board.
>
Ok, got it. Yeah I misunderstood that, but I think it's maybe the
second or third time I'm adding a regulators node myself to DT. I'll
change that.
> > And what do you mean by there not being any consumers? The WLAN and BT
> > *are* the consumers.
>
> There are no drivers that bind to the regulators and vary the voltages
> at runtime.
>
Even with the above misunderstanding clarified: so what? DT is the
representation of hardware. There's nothing that obligates us to model
DT sources in drivers 1:1.
> > > > 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
> > C.
>
> Right, which sounds a lot like being a user of the regualtor framework.
Ok, I meant "user" as a regulator provider but maybe I wasn't clear enough.
Bart
