Regards, Nishanth Menon On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 05:06, Tero Kristo <t-kristo@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 2012-02-16 at 12:23 -0600, Menon, Nishanth wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 04:27, Tero Kristo <t-kristo@xxxxxx> wrote: >> > VDD1 and VDD2 are the core voltage regulators on OMAP3. VDD1 is used >> > to control MPU/IVA voltage, and VDD2 is used for CORE. These regulators >> > are needed by DVFS. >> > >> > Voltage ranges for VDD1 and VDD2 are taken from twl4030/twl5030 data manual. >> >> Please provide documentation version referenced, else we will loose >> track of details at a later point of time. > > How should this be marked down? There are too many naming conventions > for the TI docs, and I couldn't find any example from kernel commit logs > for this. Personally I was using twl5030 es1.2 DM rev E / twl4030 es3.1 > DM rev L. Or should the literature code be used? Or is there also some > numerical version info available somewhere? Literature code is the best one. Adding, along with it, a human readable "TWL4030 ES3.1 DM rev L" is even better :) >> Also should we rename VDD1 with vdd_mpu_iva and VDD2 as vdd_core to be readable? > > This can be changed if needed, it is just a name. > regulator/twl-regulator.c is using vdd1 / vdd2 though, and also > pmic_data struct uses these. All the other regulators use Vxx type > naming also. These are the names I see on my board through > sys/class/regulator: > > dummy > VDD1 > VDD2 > VMMC1 > VDAC > VDVI > VSIM no strong opinions on this - thinking from OMAP perspective, I read vdd_mpu,core,iva. from TWL perspective, 4030/5030 - VDD1,2 6030: VCORE1,2,3 6032: SMPS1...5 so I guess it is fine as long as it is in context. -- 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
