Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] regulator: qcom_spmi: Add support for new regulator types

[Iskren Chernev <iskren.chernev@gmail.com>]

On 7/27/22 14:57, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 09:11:31PM +0300, Iskren Chernev wrote:
>
>> Add support for some regulator types that are missing in this driver, all
>> belonging to the FTSMPS426 register layout.  This is done in preparation
>> for adding support for the PM6125 PMIC.
>
>> +	.set_mode		= spmi_regulator_ftsmps3_set_mode,
>> +	.get_mode		= spmi_regulator_ftsmps426_get_mode,
>
> Why are set and get asymmetric?

Because the get method, only uses AUTO and HPM, which have the same value
for ftsmps3 and ftsmps426 (so there is no need for a new function).

>> @@ -1473,7 +1557,7 @@ static const struct spmi_regulator_mapping supported_regulators[] = {
>>  	SPMI_VREG(LDO,   HT_P600,  0, INF, HFS430, hfs430, ht_p600, 10000),
>>  	SPMI_VREG(LDO,   HT_P150,  0, INF, HFS430, hfs430, ht_p150, 10000),
>>  	SPMI_VREG(BUCK,  GP_CTL,   0, INF, SMPS,   smps,   smps,   100000),
>> -	SPMI_VREG(BUCK,  HFS430,   0, INF, HFS430, hfs430, hfs430,  10000),
>> +	SPMI_VREG(BUCK,  HFS430,   0,   3, HFS430, hfs430, hfs430,  10000),
>
> The changelog said we were adding support for new types but this looks
> like changing an existing type.

The code, as written now does a different thing for BUCK, HFS430 (on
mainline (ML) and downstream (DS) linked in the commit message). Since DS
only supports newer stuff, to be on safe side, I kept existing behavior for
rev 0-3 on BUCK(3)+HFS430(10), so at least DS and ML agree on pm6125
completely.

The commit [1] that adds support for BUCK+HFS430 might be wrong, or it
might be right for the time being (i.e initial revisions had different
behavior). I'm CC-ing Jorge.

Question is is BUCK+HFS430 on common2 (ftsmps426) or common3 (ftsmps3) or
a mix (depending on revision).

[1] 0211f68e626f (regulator: qcom_spmi: add PMS405 SPMI regulator, 2019-06-17)