From: lee.jones@linaro.org (Lee Jones)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 0/9] regulator: pwm-regulator: Introduce continuous-mode
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 18:20:38 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150709172038.GA12199@x1> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAD=FV=UkSgx0zRyJ6M2AqvWd3=jMr01ZXLC__8zr3awsYh5kyg@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, 09 Jul 2015, Doug Anderson wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 6:14 AM, Boris Brezillon
> <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> wrote:
> >> If you wish to add a 3rd mode, then I'm sure Mark will accept
> >> submissions, but I think what you are suggesting would be pretty
> >> complex and out-of-scope of what this patch-set is trying to achieve.
> >
> > Okay, still don't get the need to add a new mode which is almost doing
> > the same thing when we could have implemented it in a generic way in the
> > first place. But if your version has already been accepted then I think
> > I'll have to propose a new mode :-/.
> >
> >>
> >> As a side note, then if the voltage isn't directly proportional to the
> >> duty cycle on a large scale i.e. max => min, then it will not likely
> >> be very accurate between say table entries 1 => 2, or 4 => 5, etc.
> >>
> >> What I suggest you do in your case is provide a larger table with all
> >> of the values you find interesting, as it sounds like your PWM
> >> regulator isn't doing what one would normally expect.
> >
> > Well, I do not exactly agree here. Yes if you want to have a precise
> > mapping you'll have to add more entries in your voltage table, but
> > using linear interpolation between two points can be precise enough on
> > some ranges and prevent one to define a complete voltage table in the
> > DT.
> >
> > Doug, could give more details about the regulator used on the veyron
> > board ?
>
> There's no need for a new mode as far as veyron is concerned. The pwm
> regulator on veyron (as far as I understand it) acts the way that Lee
> describes. Try doing the math on the values in the table and you
> should see that it's as linear as it can be while still using integral
> duty cycles.
>
> Originally I only suggested using "linear interpolation" because:
>
> * It meant no bindings change, which is always nice to avoid.
>
> * It meant that old devices got this new mode, which is probably the
> right thing anyway (I think). Maybe nobody has published DTS files
> with pwm-regulator, so the point is moot.
Great news. This means that you provide the voltage the regulator
will provide with 0% duty cycle and 100% duty cycle and you're hot to
trot. No further configuration/bindings required.
--
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
To: Doug Anderson <dianders@google.com>
Cc: "Boris Brezillon" <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"broonie@kernel.org" <broonie@kernel.org>,
kernel@stlinux.com, "Liam Girdwood" <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
"Heiko Stübner" <heiko@sntech.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/9] regulator: pwm-regulator: Introduce continuous-mode
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 18:20:38 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150709172038.GA12199@x1> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAD=FV=UkSgx0zRyJ6M2AqvWd3=jMr01ZXLC__8zr3awsYh5kyg@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, 09 Jul 2015, Doug Anderson wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 6:14 AM, Boris Brezillon
> <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> wrote:
> >> If you wish to add a 3rd mode, then I'm sure Mark will accept
> >> submissions, but I think what you are suggesting would be pretty
> >> complex and out-of-scope of what this patch-set is trying to achieve.
> >
> > Okay, still don't get the need to add a new mode which is almost doing
> > the same thing when we could have implemented it in a generic way in the
> > first place. But if your version has already been accepted then I think
> > I'll have to propose a new mode :-/.
> >
> >>
> >> As a side note, then if the voltage isn't directly proportional to the
> >> duty cycle on a large scale i.e. max => min, then it will not likely
> >> be very accurate between say table entries 1 => 2, or 4 => 5, etc.
> >>
> >> What I suggest you do in your case is provide a larger table with all
> >> of the values you find interesting, as it sounds like your PWM
> >> regulator isn't doing what one would normally expect.
> >
> > Well, I do not exactly agree here. Yes if you want to have a precise
> > mapping you'll have to add more entries in your voltage table, but
> > using linear interpolation between two points can be precise enough on
> > some ranges and prevent one to define a complete voltage table in the
> > DT.
> >
> > Doug, could give more details about the regulator used on the veyron
> > board ?
>
> There's no need for a new mode as far as veyron is concerned. The pwm
> regulator on veyron (as far as I understand it) acts the way that Lee
> describes. Try doing the math on the values in the table and you
> should see that it's as linear as it can be while still using integral
> duty cycles.
>
> Originally I only suggested using "linear interpolation" because:
>
> * It meant no bindings change, which is always nice to avoid.
>
> * It meant that old devices got this new mode, which is probably the
> right thing anyway (I think). Maybe nobody has published DTS files
> with pwm-regulator, so the point is moot.
Great news. This means that you provide the voltage the regulator
will provide with 0% duty cycle and 100% duty cycle and you're hot to
trot. No further configuration/bindings required.
--
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-07-09 17:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-07-07 15:06 [PATCH v2 0/9] regulator: pwm-regulator: Introduce continuous-mode Lee Jones
2015-07-07 15:06 ` Lee Jones
2015-07-07 15:06 ` [PATCH v2 1/9] ARM: multi_v7_defconfig: Enable ST's PWM driver Lee Jones
2015-07-07 15:06 ` Lee Jones
2015-07-07 15:06 ` [PATCH v2 2/9] ARM: multi_v7_defconfig: Enable ST's Power Reset driver Lee Jones
2015-07-07 15:06 ` Lee Jones
2015-07-07 15:06 ` [PATCH v2 3/9] ARM: multi_v7_defconfig: Enable support for PWM Regulators Lee Jones
2015-07-07 15:06 ` Lee Jones
2015-07-07 15:06 ` [PATCH v2 4/9] ARM: STi: STiH407: Move PWM nodes STiH407 => STiH407-family Lee Jones
2015-07-07 15:06 ` Lee Jones
2015-07-07 15:06 ` [PATCH v2 5/9] ARM: STi: STiH407: Add PWM Regulator node Lee Jones
2015-07-07 15:06 ` Lee Jones
2015-07-07 15:06 ` [PATCH v2 6/9] regulator: pwm-regulator: Re-write bindings Lee Jones
2015-07-07 15:06 ` Lee Jones
2015-07-07 18:31 ` Applied "regulator: pwm-regulator: Re-write bindings" to the regulator tree Mark Brown
2015-07-09 8:01 ` [PATCH v2 6/9] regulator: pwm-regulator: Re-write bindings Boris Brezillon
2015-07-09 8:01 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-07 15:06 ` [PATCH v2 7/9] regulator: pwm-regulator: Add support for continuous-voltage Lee Jones
2015-07-07 15:06 ` Lee Jones
2015-07-07 18:31 ` Applied "regulator: pwm-regulator: Add support for continuous-voltage" to the regulator tree Mark Brown
2015-07-07 15:06 ` [PATCH v2 8/9] regulator: pwm-regulator: Simplify voltage to duty-cycle call Lee Jones
2015-07-07 15:06 ` Lee Jones
2015-07-07 18:31 ` Applied "regulator: pwm-regulator: Simplify voltage to duty-cycle call" to the regulator tree Mark Brown
2015-07-07 15:06 ` [PATCH v2 9/9] regulator: pwm-regulator: Don't assign structure attributes right away Lee Jones
2015-07-07 15:06 ` Lee Jones
2015-07-09 6:30 ` [PATCH v2 0/9] regulator: pwm-regulator: Introduce continuous-mode Boris Brezillon
2015-07-09 6:30 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-09 11:51 ` Lee Jones
2015-07-09 11:51 ` Lee Jones
2015-07-09 13:14 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-09 13:14 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-09 15:44 ` Lee Jones
2015-07-09 15:44 ` Lee Jones
2015-07-09 16:25 ` Doug Anderson
2015-07-09 16:25 ` Doug Anderson
2015-07-09 17:20 ` Lee Jones [this message]
2015-07-09 17:20 ` Lee Jones
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=20150709172038.GA12199@x1 \
--to=lee.jones@linaro.org \
--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.