+ l-o, http://marc.info/?t=140316427500004&r=1&w=2 full thread Minor change in subject to indicate palmas regulator fail On 18:49-20140620, Alexandre Courbot wrote: > On 06/20/2014 06:41 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > >* PGP Signed by an unknown key > > > >On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 03:44:46PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote: > > > >>dbabd624d > >>regulator: palmas: Reemove open coded functions with helper functions > > > >>Keerthy, Nishanth, could it be that there is still something wrong with the > >>REGULATOR_LINEAR_RANGE() definitions? > > > >>This seems to be the cause for our trouble, but the other questions might > >>still stand, in case there is interest in discussing them. > > > >There was a bug fix to the Palmas driver which just went to Linus the > >other day, are you sure this isn't fixed in mainline (or -next, it's > >been in -next for a week or something)? > > If you are talking about > > 6b7f2d82d5 > regulator: palmas: Fix SMPS list for 0V > > then it is in my tree. There is actually no difference on > palmas-regulator.c between my tree and the current -next (or Linus' > tree for that instance). > > So it seems to be something else we are dealing with here. Your quote earlier in the thread " _regulator_is_enabled() *also* returns false " Got me curious. Looking at the patch: dbabd624d4eec50b623bab070d1e39a854b2d65c (regulator: palmas: Reemove open coded functions with helper functions) I noticed the following change palmas_is_enabled_smps -> regulator_is_enabled_regmap So I decided to search for enable_reg in palmas-regulator.c and I think it needs valid enable_reg, mask, value for regulator_is_enabled_regmap to work :). Maybe to be sure, we could print the following: PALMAS_SMPS8_VOLTAGE, PALMAS_SMPS8_CTRL, PALMAS_SMPS8_TSTEP, Anyways, I quickly boot tested the following on DRA7evm (which also uses Palmas): [ 1.933939] palmas-pmic 48070000.i2c:tps659038@58:tps659038_pmic: enable_reg = 0x00, mask =0x00 [ 1.944210] smps123: 850 <--> 1250 mV at 1060 mV [ 1.950717] palmas-pmic 48070000.i2c:tps659038@58:tps659038_pmic: enable_reg = 0x00, mask =0x00 [ 1.960754] smps45: 850 <--> 1150 mV at 1060 mV [ 1.967048] palmas-pmic 48070000.i2c:tps659038@58:tps659038_pmic: enable_reg = 0x00, mask =0x00 [ 1.977072] smps6: 850 <--> 1650 mV at 1060 mV [ 1.983077] palmas-pmic 48070000.i2c:tps659038@58:tps659038_pmic: enable_reg = 0x00, mask =0x00 [ 1.992994] smps7: 850 <--> 1030 mV at 1030 mV [ 1.999238] palmas-pmic 48070000.i2c:tps659038@58:tps659038_pmic: enable_reg = 0x00, mask =0x00 [ 2.009161] smps8: 850 <--> 1250 mV at 1060 mV [ 2.015304] palmas-pmic 48070000.i2c:tps659038@58:tps659038_pmic: enable_reg = 0x00, mask =0x00 It does seem to me that either set_mode also should use core functions OR you still need a palmas specific is_enable, enable/disable functions (contrary to the claim of the patch in question - which I think introduced regressions). Otherwise, completely untested diff below - can you give this a shot? diff --git a/drivers/regulator/palmas-regulator.c b/drivers/regulator/palmas-regulator.c index b982f0f..bbfe22f 100644 --- a/drivers/regulator/palmas-regulator.c +++ b/drivers/regulator/palmas-regulator.c @@ -964,6 +964,20 @@ static int palmas_regulators_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) return ret; pmic->current_reg_mode[id] = reg & PALMAS_SMPS12_CTRL_MODE_ACTIVE_MASK; + + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "enable_reg = 0x%02x, mask =0x%02x\n", + pmic->desc[id].enable_reg, + pmic->desc[id].enable_mask); + pmic->desc[id].enable_reg = + PALMAS_BASE_TO_REG(PALMAS_LDO_BASE, + palmas_regs_info[id].ctrl_addr); + pmic->desc[id].enable_mask = + PALMAS_SMPS12_CTRL_MODE_ACTIVE_MASK; + /* + * The following completely ignores + * pmic->current_reg_mode[id] (set_mode) + */ + pmic->desc[id].enable_val = SMPS_CTRL_MODE_ON; } pmic->desc[id].type = REGULATOR_VOLTAGE; -- Regards, Nishanth Menon -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
