On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 8:59 PM Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 07:48:20PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 7:03 PM Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 09:32:06PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>
> > > > + vreg_pmu_aon_0p59: ldo1 {
> > > > + regulator-name = "vreg_pmu_aon_0p59";
> > > > + regulator-min-microvolt = <540000>;
> > > > + regulator-max-microvolt = <840000>;
> > > > + };
>
> > > That's a *very* wide voltage range for a supply that's got a name ending
Because it's an error, it should have been 640000. Thanks for spotting it.
> > > in _0_p59 which sounds a lot like it should be fixed at 0.59V.
> > > Similarly for a bunch of the other supplies, and I'm not seeing any
> > > evidence that the consumers do any voltage changes here? There doesn't
> > > appear to be any logic here, I'm not convinced these are validated or
> > > safe constraints.
>
> > No, the users don't request any regulators (or rather: software
> > representations thereof) because - as per the cover letter - no
> > regulators are created by the PMU driver. This is what is physically
> > on the board - as the schematics and the datasheet define it. I took
>
> The above makes no sense. How can constraints be "what is physically on
> the board", particularly variable constrants when there isn't even a
> consumer? What values are you taking from which documentation?
>
The operating conditions for PMU outputs. I took them from a
confidential datasheet. There's a table for input constraints and
possible output values.
And what do you mean by there not being any consumers? The WLAN and BT
*are* the consumers.
> The cover letter and binding both claimed (buried after large amounts of
> changelog) that these PMUs were exposing regulators to consumers and the
> DTS puports to do exactly that...
>
Yes, but I'm not sure what the question is.
> > the values from the docs verbatim. In C, we create a power sequencing
> > provider which doesn't use the regulator framework at all.
>
> For something that doesn't use the regulator framework at all what
> appears to be a provider in patch 16 ("power: pwrseq: add a driver for
> the QCA6390 PMU module") seems to have a lot of regualtor API calls?
This driver is a power sequencing *provider* but also a regulator
*consumer*. It gets regulators from the host and exposes a power
sequencer to *its* consumers (WLAN and BT). On DT it exposes
regulators (LDO outputs of the PMU) but we don't instantiate them in
C.
Bart
