From: broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com (Mark Brown)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 2/2] ux500: add ab8500-regulators machine specific data
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 16:47:27 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100714154726.GH31073@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100714153643.GB1689@bnru01.bnr.st.com>
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 09:06:44PM +0530, Sundar R IYER wrote:
> > Which datasheet, and will the system design actually be varying them at
> > runtime - if it will how will it do so? This is the settings for the
> I am referring to the AB8500 device data sheet; not sure if its
> available open. I have taken the minimal/maximum figures as what is
> mentioned for each supplies.
OK, you're missing the point here. The system constraints say what's
going to be used on this actual system not what an individual component
is capable of supporting. Regulators are almost always vastly more
flexible than any system can use and so the constraints are used to tell
the regulator core what configurations can be used on a given system.
You need to check what makes sense on the system for the things that are
connected.
> > Again, is it really the case that this will happen in this system?
> Yes, if you are referring to regulator enable/disable.
For *all* supplies?
> > Nothing is currently able to actually do that, and unless every consumer
> > using a given supply is hooked into the regulator API things will go
> > wrong when some of them start doing so.
> As i said earlier, my intention is to hard code the machine constraints.
> The actual control in terms of enable/disable, controlling supply
> voltages will happen, as you say when consumers are hooked up.
Again, you need to think about what's actually hooked up. Permission to
do any of this stuff depends heavily on the set of consumers that are
actually hooked up - think about the example I mentioned above where
some of the consumers on a shared supply are hooked up and doing enables
and disables, for example. What happens when they cause the supply to
be disabled but another consumer is running?
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To: Sundar R IYER <sundar.iyer@stericsson.com>
Cc: "lrg@slimlogic.co.uk" <lrg@slimlogic.co.uk>,
"sameo@linux.intel.com" <sameo@linux.intel.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
STEricsson_nomadik_linux <STEricsson_nomadik_linux@list.st.com>,
Linus WALLEIJ <linus.walleij@stericsson.com>,
Bengt JONSSON <bengt.g.jonsson@stericsson.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] ux500: add ab8500-regulators machine specific data
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 16:47:27 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100714154726.GH31073@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100714153643.GB1689@bnru01.bnr.st.com>
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 09:06:44PM +0530, Sundar R IYER wrote:
> > Which datasheet, and will the system design actually be varying them at
> > runtime - if it will how will it do so? This is the settings for the
> I am referring to the AB8500 device data sheet; not sure if its
> available open. I have taken the minimal/maximum figures as what is
> mentioned for each supplies.
OK, you're missing the point here. The system constraints say what's
going to be used on this actual system not what an individual component
is capable of supporting. Regulators are almost always vastly more
flexible than any system can use and so the constraints are used to tell
the regulator core what configurations can be used on a given system.
You need to check what makes sense on the system for the things that are
connected.
> > Again, is it really the case that this will happen in this system?
> Yes, if you are referring to regulator enable/disable.
For *all* supplies?
> > Nothing is currently able to actually do that, and unless every consumer
> > using a given supply is hooked into the regulator API things will go
> > wrong when some of them start doing so.
> As i said earlier, my intention is to hard code the machine constraints.
> The actual control in terms of enable/disable, controlling supply
> voltages will happen, as you say when consumers are hooked up.
Again, you need to think about what's actually hooked up. Permission to
do any of this stuff depends heavily on the set of consumers that are
actually hooked up - think about the example I mentioned above where
some of the consumers on a shared supply are hooked up and doing enables
and disables, for example. What happens when they cause the supply to
be disabled but another consumer is running?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-07-14 15:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 68+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-07-13 14:09 [PATCH v2 1/2] regulator: add support for regulators on the ab8500 MFD Sundar Iyer
2010-07-13 14:09 ` Sundar Iyer
2010-07-13 14:09 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] ux500: add ab8500-regulators machine specific data Sundar Iyer
2010-07-13 14:09 ` Sundar Iyer
2010-07-13 14:18 ` Mark Brown
2010-07-13 14:18 ` Mark Brown
2010-07-13 14:41 ` Sundar R IYER
2010-07-13 14:41 ` Sundar R IYER
2010-07-13 14:56 ` Mark Brown
2010-07-13 14:56 ` Mark Brown
2010-07-13 15:08 ` Sundar R IYER
2010-07-13 15:08 ` Sundar R IYER
2010-07-13 15:09 ` Mark Brown
2010-07-13 15:09 ` Mark Brown
2010-07-13 16:13 ` Sundar R IYER
2010-07-13 16:13 ` Sundar R IYER
2010-07-13 20:38 ` Mark Brown
2010-07-13 20:38 ` Mark Brown
2010-07-14 14:50 ` Sundar R IYER
2010-07-14 14:50 ` Sundar R IYER
2010-07-14 14:57 ` Mark Brown
2010-07-14 14:57 ` Mark Brown
2010-07-14 15:36 ` Sundar R IYER
2010-07-14 15:36 ` Sundar R IYER
2010-07-14 15:47 ` Mark Brown [this message]
2010-07-14 15:47 ` Mark Brown
2010-07-14 16:09 ` Sundar R IYER
2010-07-14 16:09 ` Sundar R IYER
2010-07-14 16:20 ` Mark Brown
2010-07-14 16:20 ` Mark Brown
2010-07-14 16:47 ` Sundar R IYER
2010-07-14 16:47 ` Sundar R IYER
2010-07-14 17:03 ` Mark Brown
2010-07-14 17:03 ` Mark Brown
2010-07-14 17:36 ` Sundar R IYER
2010-07-14 17:36 ` Sundar R IYER
2010-07-14 18:42 ` Mark Brown
2010-07-14 18:42 ` Mark Brown
2010-07-14 22:51 ` Linus Walleij
2010-07-14 22:51 ` Linus Walleij
2010-07-15 9:09 ` Mark Brown
2010-07-15 9:09 ` Mark Brown
2010-07-13 14:17 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] regulator: add support for regulators on the ab8500 MFD Mark Brown
2010-07-13 14:17 ` Mark Brown
2010-07-13 14:34 ` Sundar R IYER
2010-07-13 14:34 ` Sundar R IYER
2010-07-13 14:57 ` Mark Brown
2010-07-13 14:57 ` Mark Brown
2010-07-13 14:58 ` Mark Brown
2010-07-13 14:58 ` Mark Brown
2010-07-13 15:11 ` Sundar R IYER
2010-07-13 15:11 ` Sundar R IYER
2010-07-13 15:12 ` Mark Brown
2010-07-13 15:12 ` Mark Brown
2010-07-13 16:18 ` Sundar R IYER
2010-07-13 16:18 ` Sundar R IYER
2010-07-13 20:40 ` Mark Brown
2010-07-13 20:40 ` Mark Brown
2010-07-15 10:29 ` Liam Girdwood
2010-07-15 10:29 ` Liam Girdwood
2010-10-27 16:25 ` Thiago Farina
2010-10-27 16:25 ` Thiago Farina
2010-10-27 17:33 ` Mark Brown
2010-10-27 17:33 ` Mark Brown
2010-10-27 17:42 ` Thiago Farina
2010-10-27 17:42 ` Thiago Farina
2010-10-27 17:56 ` Mark Brown
2010-10-27 17:56 ` Mark Brown
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20100714154726.GH31073@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main \
--to=broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.