On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 09:29:54PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: > 12.05.2019 12:04, Mark Brown пишет: > > On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 04:27:42PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: > > Those seem like they should be doable in generic code, though the fact > > that the constraint is variable makes it annoying to specify - otherwise > > it'd just be a minimum and maximum spread. I'm not really coming up > > with any great ideas right now, it's getting into OPP type territory but > > it sounds like there's more flexibility for ramping the core voltage so > > you'd end up with silly numbers of OPPs. > The OPP shouldn't have to do anything in regards to the regulators > coupling. The whole idea of the regulators coupling is to make device > drivers to not churn with the coupling. The coupling in this case is > specific to SoC and not to a particular board. The thing with OPPs is that they specify a whole table of values that work together including regulator settings, the result being that you have many fewer options but don't need to think about constraints. > I think the current approach with the customized regulators coupler is > the best solution for the time being. We may consider something more > generic if there will be other users with a similar coupling > requirements, otherwise it's quite difficult to judge what is "generic". > Do you agree? Some of the constraints (like having drivers loaded) are kind of fun...
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
