On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 02:03:29PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> 05.08.2019 11:33, Peter De Schrijver пишет:
> > On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 05:39:23PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> >> 02.08.2019 17:05, Peter De Schrijver пишет:
> >>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 06:18:32PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> >>>> Add regulators coupler for Tegra30 SoCs that performs voltage balancing
> >>>> of a coupled regulators and thus provides voltage scaling functionality.
> >>>>
> >>>> There are 2 coupled regulators on all Tegra30 SoCs: CORE and CPU. The
> >>>> coupled regulator voltages shall be in a range of 300mV from each other
> >>>> and CORE voltage shall be higher than the CPU by N mV, where N depends
> >>>> on the CPU voltage.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> drivers/soc/tegra/Kconfig | 4 +
> >>>> drivers/soc/tegra/Makefile | 1 +
> >>>> drivers/soc/tegra/regulators-tegra30.c | 316 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>>> 3 files changed, 321 insertions(+)
> >>>> create mode 100644 drivers/soc/tegra/regulators-tegra30.c
> >>>>
> >>> ...
> >>>
> >>>> +
> >>>> +static int tegra30_core_cpu_limit(int cpu_uV)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> + if (cpu_uV < 800000)
> >>>> + return 950000;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + if (cpu_uV < 900000)
> >>>> + return 1000000;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + if (cpu_uV < 1000000)
> >>>> + return 1100000;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + if (cpu_uV < 1100000)
> >>>> + return 1200000;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + if (cpu_uV < 1250000) {
> >>>> + switch (tegra_sku_info.cpu_speedo_id) {
> >>>> + case 0 ... 1:
> >>> Aren't we supposed to add /* fall through */ here now?
> >>
> >> There is no compiler warning if there is nothing in-between of the
> >> case-switches, so annotation isn't really necessary here. Of course it
> >> is possible to add an explicit annotation just to make clear the
> >> fall-through intention.
> >>
> >
> > Ah. Ok. Whatever you want then :)
>
> I'll add the comments if there will be a need to re-spin this series.
>
> >>>> + case 4:
> >>>> + case 7 ... 8:
> >>>> + return 1200000;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + default:
> >>>> + return 1300000;
> >>>> + }
> >>>> + }
> >>>> +
> >>>
> >>> Other than that, this looks ok to me.
> >>
> >> Awesome, thank you very much! Explicit ACK will be appreciated as well.
> >
> > Acked-By: Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@xxxxxxxxxx>
All of them.
Peter.
