On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 10:16:14PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: > 12.11.2020 20:16, Mark Brown пишет: > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 07:59:36PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: > >> Also, some device-trees won't have that regulator anyways because board > >> schematics isn't available, and thus, we can't fix them. > > This is what dummy supplies are for? > But it's not allowed to change voltage of a dummy regulator, is it > intentional? Of course not, we can't know if the requested new voltage is valid - the driver would have to have explict support for handling situations where it's not possible to change the voltage (which it can detect through enumerating the values it wants to set at startup). [Requesting the same supply multiple times] > > So there's no known obstacle to putting enumeration of supported > > voltages into the OPP core then? I'm a bit confused here. > It's an obstacle if both OPP and device driver need to get the same > regulator. Like in the case of this DRM driver, which need to control > the voltage instead of allowing OPP core to do it. It wasn't entirely deliberate but the warnings have proven useful in catching bugs (eg, leaked regulator requests). The general thought is that if two things both claim to control the same supply on a consumer then they really ought to be coordinating with each other. > Please notice that devm_tegra_dc_opp_table_init() of this patch doesn't > use dev_pm_opp_set_regulators(), which would allow OPP core to filter > out unsupported OPPs. But then OPP core will need need to get an already > requested regulator and this doesn't work well. There is nothing stopping us adding a variant of that call which passes in the regulators that were acquired by the caller rather than having the OPP core do the requesting, or equally the OPP core could provide a mechanism for the caller to get the regulators that were requested. > > Ah, so each board duplicates the OPP tables then, or there's an > > expectation that if there's some limit then they'll copy and modify the > > table? If that's the case then it's a bit redundant to do filtering > > indeed. > I think this is not strictly defined. Either way will work, although > perhaps it should be more preferred that unsupported OPPs aren't present > in a device-tree. OTOH that does mean that if there's an updated information on OPPs (new ones added, old ones determined to be unstable) then you can't just update a central place. It depends if the OPPs are thought of as describing the SoC or the system as a whole I guess.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
