Re: Palmas regulator broken (was Re: [PATCH] ARM: tegra: TN7: relax some regulators)

[Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>]

On 08:23-20140620, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> + l-o,
> 	http://marc.info/?t=140316427500004&r=1&w=2 full thread
> 
> Minor change in subject to indicate palmas regulator fail
> 
> On 18:49-20140620, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> > On 06/20/2014 06:41 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > >* PGP Signed by an unknown key
> > >
> > >On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 03:44:46PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> > >
> > >>dbabd624d
> > >>regulator: palmas: Reemove open coded functions with helper functions
> > >
> > >>Keerthy, Nishanth, could it be that there is still something wrong with the
> > >>REGULATOR_LINEAR_RANGE() definitions?
> > >
> > >>This seems to be the cause for our trouble, but the other questions might
> > >>still stand, in case there is interest in discussing them.
> > >
> > >There was a bug fix to the Palmas driver which just went to Linus the
> > >other day, are you sure this isn't fixed in mainline (or -next, it's
> > >been in -next for a week or something)?
> > 
> > If you are talking about
> > 
> > 6b7f2d82d5
> > regulator: palmas: Fix SMPS list for 0V
> > 
> > then it is in my tree. There is actually no difference on
> > palmas-regulator.c between my tree and the current -next (or Linus'
> > tree for that instance).
> > 
> > So it seems to be something else we are dealing with here.
> 
> Your quote earlier in the thread
> "
> _regulator_is_enabled() *also* returns false
> "
> 
> Got me curious. Looking at the patch:
> dbabd624d4eec50b623bab070d1e39a854b2d65c (regulator: palmas: Reemove
> open coded functions with helper functions)
> I noticed the following change
> palmas_is_enabled_smps -> regulator_is_enabled_regmap
> 
> So I decided to search for enable_reg in palmas-regulator.c and I think
> it needs valid enable_reg, mask, value for regulator_is_enabled_regmap to work
> :).
> 
> Maybe to be sure, we could print the following:
> PALMAS_SMPS8_VOLTAGE, PALMAS_SMPS8_CTRL, PALMAS_SMPS8_TSTEP,
> 
> Anyways, I quickly boot tested the following on DRA7evm (which also uses Palmas):
> [    1.933939] palmas-pmic 48070000.i2c:tps659038@58:tps659038_pmic: enable_reg = 0x00, mask =0x00
> [    1.944210] smps123: 850 <--> 1250 mV at 1060 mV 
> [    1.950717] palmas-pmic 48070000.i2c:tps659038@58:tps659038_pmic: enable_reg = 0x00, mask =0x00
> [    1.960754] smps45: 850 <--> 1150 mV at 1060 mV 
> [    1.967048] palmas-pmic 48070000.i2c:tps659038@58:tps659038_pmic: enable_reg = 0x00, mask =0x00
> [    1.977072] smps6: 850 <--> 1650 mV at 1060 mV 
> [    1.983077] palmas-pmic 48070000.i2c:tps659038@58:tps659038_pmic: enable_reg = 0x00, mask =0x00
> [    1.992994] smps7: 850 <--> 1030 mV at 1030 mV 
> [    1.999238] palmas-pmic 48070000.i2c:tps659038@58:tps659038_pmic: enable_reg = 0x00, mask =0x00
> [    2.009161] smps8: 850 <--> 1250 mV at 1060 mV 
> [    2.015304] palmas-pmic 48070000.i2c:tps659038@58:tps659038_pmic: enable_reg = 0x00, mask =0x00
> 
> It does seem to me that either set_mode also should use core functions
> OR you still need a palmas specific is_enable, enable/disable functions
> (contrary to the claim of the patch in question - which I think
>  introduced regressions).
> 
> Otherwise, completely untested diff below - can you  give this a shot?
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/regulator/palmas-regulator.c b/drivers/regulator/palmas-regulator.c
> index b982f0f..bbfe22f 100644
> --- a/drivers/regulator/palmas-regulator.c
> +++ b/drivers/regulator/palmas-regulator.c
> @@ -964,6 +964,20 @@ static int palmas_regulators_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  				return ret;
>  			pmic->current_reg_mode[id] = reg &
>  					PALMAS_SMPS12_CTRL_MODE_ACTIVE_MASK;
> +
> +			dev_err(&pdev->dev, "enable_reg = 0x%02x, mask =0x%02x\n",
> +				pmic->desc[id].enable_reg,
> +				pmic->desc[id].enable_mask);
> +			pmic->desc[id].enable_reg =
> +					PALMAS_BASE_TO_REG(PALMAS_LDO_BASE,
> +						palmas_regs_info[id].ctrl_addr);
> +			pmic->desc[id].enable_mask =
> +					PALMAS_SMPS12_CTRL_MODE_ACTIVE_MASK;
> +			/*
> +			 * The following completely ignores
> +			 * pmic->current_reg_mode[id] (set_mode)
> +			 */
> +			pmic->desc[id].enable_val = SMPS_CTRL_MODE_ON;
>  		}
>  
>  		pmic->desc[id].type = REGULATOR_VOLTAGE;

rev 2 of the diff - this does depened on the fact that regulator_desc is
not memdup-ed by regulator code - that lets us do a bit of a trickery ;)
- and I dropped the prints.. Unrelated: This makes me wonder why
palmas_is_enabled_ldo at all?

Keerthy, Mark,
what do you think of the following (esp the flip of desc value):
diff --git a/drivers/regulator/palmas-regulator.c b/drivers/regulator/palmas-regulator.c
index b982f0f..f01d9c5 100644
--- a/drivers/regulator/palmas-regulator.c
+++ b/drivers/regulator/palmas-regulator.c
@@ -299,7 +299,7 @@ static int palmas_set_mode_smps(struct regulator_dev *dev, unsigned int mode)
 	struct palmas_pmic *pmic = rdev_get_drvdata(dev);
 	int id = rdev_get_id(dev);
 	unsigned int reg;
-	bool rail_enable = true;
+	bool rail_enable = true, enable_val = true;
 
 	palmas_smps_read(pmic->palmas, palmas_regs_info[id].ctrl_addr, &reg);
 	reg &= ~PALMAS_SMPS12_CTRL_MODE_ACTIVE_MASK;
@@ -318,6 +318,7 @@ static int palmas_set_mode_smps(struct regulator_dev *dev, unsigned int mode)
 		reg |= SMPS_CTRL_MODE_PWM;
 		break;
 	default:
+		enable_val = false;
 		return -EINVAL;
 	}
 
@@ -325,6 +326,11 @@ static int palmas_set_mode_smps(struct regulator_dev *dev, unsigned int mode)
 	if (rail_enable)
 		palmas_smps_write(pmic->palmas,
 			palmas_regs_info[id].ctrl_addr, reg);
+
+	/* Switch the enable value to ensure this is used for enable */
+	if (enable_val)
+		pmic->desc[id].enable_val = pmic->current_reg_mode[id];
+
 	return 0;
 }
 
@@ -964,6 +970,14 @@ static int palmas_regulators_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 				return ret;
 			pmic->current_reg_mode[id] = reg &
 					PALMAS_SMPS12_CTRL_MODE_ACTIVE_MASK;
+
+			pmic->desc[id].enable_reg =
+					PALMAS_BASE_TO_REG(PALMAS_LDO_BASE,
+						palmas_regs_info[id].ctrl_addr);
+			pmic->desc[id].enable_mask =
+					PALMAS_SMPS12_CTRL_MODE_ACTIVE_MASK;
+			/* set_mode overrides this value */
+			pmic->desc[id].enable_val = SMPS_CTRL_MODE_ON;
 		}
 
 		pmic->desc[id].type = REGULATOR_VOLTAGE;
-- 
Regards,
Nishanth Menon