On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 07:00:27PM +0200, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 4/29/22 02:52, Marten Lindahl wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 06:49:21PM +0200, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >> On 4/28/22 07:40, Mårten Lindahl wrote:
> >>> The pmbus core does not have operations for getting or setting voltage.
> >>> Add functions get/set voltage for the dynamic regulator framework.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Mårten Lindahl <marten.lindahl@xxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>> drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus_core.c | 63 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>> 1 file changed, 63 insertions(+)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus_core.c b/drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus_core.c
> >>> index bd143ca0c320..fe7dbb496e3b 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus_core.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus_core.c
> >>> @@ -1531,6 +1531,11 @@ static const struct pmbus_sensor_attr voltage_attributes[] = {
> >>> .gbit = PB_STATUS_VOUT_OV,
> >>> .limit = vout_limit_attrs,
> >>> .nlimit = ARRAY_SIZE(vout_limit_attrs),
> >>> + }, {
> >>> + .reg = PMBUS_VOUT_COMMAND,
> >>> + .class = PSC_VOLTAGE_OUT,
> >>> + .paged = true,
> >>> + .func = PMBUS_HAVE_VOUT,
> >>> }
> >>
> >> Ok, you lost me here. This adds an inX_input attribute. Why ? This is completely
> >> unrelated to the intended scope of this patch. It also doesn't report a measured
> >> voltage, but a configuration value. If anything, it would have to be a separate
> >> patch, and you'd have to argue hard why it makes sense to report it as measured
> >> voltage.
> >
> > I see. The reason for adding this is as simple as I now understand it is wrong.
> > Please remember, my first version of the set/get_voltage functions where hardcoded
> > with L16 input/output. Then in order to use the already existing convertion functions
> > pmbus_data2reg and pmbus_reg2data I added this only for the need of a sensor object,
> > as those functions are tailored for a sensor object.
> >
> > So now I have to ask you for advice. Should I use the existing convertion
> > functions, or do you suggest new variants of them? If reusing them, I guess I have
> > two options:
> > 1: Modify them to take class, page, and data outside of a sensor object as input.
> > 2: Use them as they are, but create a local 'dummy' sensor object with class, page,
> > and data to use when calling the convertion functions.
> >
>
> I think 2) is the easier and less complex solution for now.
Hi Guenter!
This seems to work fine.
>
> > I hope I made it more clear for you now how I was thinking. There is
> > absolutely no intention of having sensor inX_input attributes for
> > reading the setpoint values. This was just an unwanted sideeffect, and I
> > will glady remove it again.
>
> No problem. Thanks for the explanation.
>
> >>
> >>> };
> >>>
> >>> @@ -2563,11 +2568,69 @@ static int pmbus_regulator_get_error_flags(struct regulator_dev *rdev, unsigned
> >>> return 0;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> +static int pmbus_regulator_get_voltage(struct regulator_dev *rdev)
> >>> +{
> >>> + struct device *dev = rdev_get_dev(rdev);
> >>> + struct i2c_client *client = to_i2c_client(dev->parent);
> >>> + struct pmbus_data *data = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
> >>> + struct pmbus_sensor *sensor;
> >>> + u8 page = rdev_get_id(rdev);
> >>> + int ret;
> >>> +
> >>> + sensor = pmbus_find_sensor(data, page, PMBUS_READ_VOUT);
> >>> + if (IS_ERR(sensor))
> >>> + return -ENODATA;
> >>> +
> >>> + mutex_lock(&data->update_lock);
> >>> + pmbus_update_sensor_data(client, sensor);
> >>> + if (sensor->data < 0)
> >>> + ret = sensor->data;
> >>> + else
> >>> + ret = (int)pmbus_reg2data(data, sensor) * 1000; /* unit is uV */
> >>> + mutex_unlock(&data->update_lock);
> >>> +
> >>
> >> Same question. Why ?
> >
> > Same reason as above. Only to get the sensor object for pmbus_reg2data.
> >
> >>
> >>> + return ret;
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >>> +static int pmbus_regulator_set_voltage(struct regulator_dev *rdev, int min_uV,
> >>> + int max_uV, unsigned int *selector)
> >>> +{
> >>> + struct device *dev = rdev_get_dev(rdev);
> >>> + struct i2c_client *client = to_i2c_client(dev->parent);
> >>> + struct pmbus_data *data = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
> >>> + struct pmbus_sensor *sensor;
> >>> + u8 page = rdev_get_id(rdev);
> >>> + s64 tmp = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(min_uV, 1000); /* convert to mV */
> >>> + u16 val;
> >>> + int ret;
> >>> + *selector = 0;
> >>> +
> >>> + sensor = pmbus_find_sensor(data, page, PMBUS_VOUT_COMMAND);
> >>> + if (IS_ERR(sensor))
> >>> + return -ENODATA;
> >>> +
> >>> + ret = _pmbus_read_word_data(client, page, 0xff, PMBUS_VOUT_MARGIN_LOW);
> >>> + if (ret < 0)
> >>> + return ret;
> >>> +
> >> That actually makes me wonder: What about VOUT_MARGIN_HIGH ?
> >
> > Ok, I will add a check for VOUT_MARGIN_HIGH also.
> >
> >> Also, there are optional MFR_VOUT_MIN and MFR_VOUT_MAX registers.
> >> Would it possibly make sense to determine the valid range once
> >> during probe and then compare against it ?
> >
> > Maybe this could be a good thing, so that we don't need to read both
> > margins every time. But I guess that would need a new kind of page list
> > with margins added to the pmbus_driver_info struct?
> > I would prefer to make that change in a separate patch if it's ok with
> > you?
> >
>
> I think you need to check for four values right now:
>
> - Try to read MFR_VOUT_MIN. If that does not work, read VOUT_MARGIN_LOW.
> - Same for high values.
Ok, I think I first need to check the MFR_VOUT_MIN/MFR_VOUT_MAX
registers to make sure they are supported. On LTC2977 they are not
supported, so I need to write PMBUS_CLEAR_FAULTS after trying to access
them.
I'll send a new patch for this.
Kind regards
Mårten
>
> Ultimately, yes, I think we should add a list of limits. I think it
> would make more sense though to add the limits to a new regulator
> specific data structure. Maybe we should create a separate data structure
> for regulators. Right now we pass struct pmbus_data. Maybe we need
> struct pmbus_regulator_data which would contain a pointer to
> struct pmbus_data as well as additional information needed for
> regulators.
>
> Thanks,
> Guenter
