On Tue, 2019-12-10 at 12:45 +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 12:41:47PM +0000, Vaittinen, Matti wrote: > > > The thing is that if we do initial setting of voltages (based on > > binding data) we can set the voltages to registers before we switch > > to > > that run-level. If we don't do initial setting then we will only do > > setting when voltage change is actually requested - which may be > > too > > late. (I actually heard somewhere that there is 40 uS time limit - > > but > > I don't see how this is counted. Starting from what? - and I don't > > see > > how this is guaranteed even with GPIO if interrupts are to be > > served). > > I suspect that if that limit is a real thing it's from some runtime > performance metrics where people are doing benchmarking to verify > that > everything is working fine rather than an absolute thing that is a > basic > requirement for operation. > > > So, I am again wondering if I should just upstream the basic > > control > > with I2C for SoCs which do not require fast DVS voltage changes and > > perhaps maintain/provide own set of patches with additional > > interface > > for run-level control for those customers who require it... Sorry > > for > > being such a difficult guy. Decision making seems to not be my > > strong > > point :/ > > Yes, definitely submit the basic stuff separately - the GPIO changes > can > be reviewed as a separate, incremental patch. Right. That was rationale behind splitting the regulator support in two patches. I was just unsure if I should add all the DT bindings already here. Well, I guess I will drop the run-level ones for now. Adding new bindings later might not be as hard as removing them. Thanks for support! Discussing this with someone is definitely helpful :) Br, Matti
