On Wednesday 27 June 2012 12:56:01 Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 06/27/2012 12:50 PM, Marc Dietrich wrote:
> > On Wednesday 27 June 2012 12:31:01 Mark Brown wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 06:31:00PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> >>> sm1: HW defaults and schematic match at 1.0v. marvin24's kernel had a
> >>> max
> >>> of 1.125v, but this wasn't applied since apply_uV wasn't set.
> >>
> >> apply_uV is only valid if a single voltage is specified.
> >
> > yes, that's why there is a ".apply_uV = (_minmv == _maxmv)" in the
> > regulator macro.
> >
> >> If a voltage
> >> range were specified and it were acted on we'd take the lowest (not
> >> highest) voltage allowed.
> >
> > Sorry, I don't get it. In this case, the board wouldn't boot at all
> > because
> > nearly all supplies would be undervoltaged. I just checked and all
> > voltages
> > are actually set to the *highest* (max) value. Maybe they aren't changed
> > at
> > all?
>
> Yes, in the absence of any explicit action (i.e. a call to
> regulator_set_voltage() elsewhere), the regulator core doesn't reprogram
> the regulator at registration time, except for a few specific conditions
> e.g. something like when min==max and apply_uV is set.
>
> I imagine the DVFS code in your downstream kernel /is/ calling
> regulator_set_voltage() later, assuming that config option is enabled
> anyway. See arch/arm/mach-tegra/{dvfs.c,tegra2_dvfs.c}.
Great, so all the tables (except sm0/1) were moot :-( At least I learned
something again ;-)
Stephen, I'm going to test your patch, just a few minutes ...
Thanks
Marc
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
