[PATCH] sunxi: a10-lime: add regulator nodes

Maxime Ripard
2015-04-13T08:15:18Z

On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 01:35:06PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 12:17:57PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 04, 2015 at 07:47:16PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > > Or the regulator is used by some passive component on the board that
> > > doesn't appear in DT (or some driver that doesn't yet have DT support
> > > doesn't claim the regulator) and it gets switched off. Or we power it
> > > off and then later discover that we've been placing physical stress on
> > > the system.
>
> > Isn't that what the regulator-always-on property is here for?
>
> Only if it's actually added by someone after having looked at the
> system...

True, but that can also be said for pretty much any DT patch. If you
do something wrong in your DT and haven't looked carefuly at your
datasheet/schematics, here be dragons.

> > > Providing .dtsis for reference designs can make sense, if there's a
> > > widely cloned board with lots of common design elements then reusing
> > > that .dtsi is fine but clearly that .dtsi isn't going to enable the full
> > > flexibility of the regulators since there will be constraints from that
> > > reference design.
>
> > That PMIC is used with various SoCs, so that's not really an
> > option. And especially when it comes to regulators, I don't think
> > there's really a pattern that emerged yet...
>
> I'm not sure you saw the "reference design" part of the above?

I saw that, I was just saying that this doesn't really work for us
unfortunately.

> > > Nothing else is safe. Remember, if we get this wrong we risk system
> > > instability and at worst physical damage to the system either in rare
> > > cases immediately due to getting something badly wrong or more likely
> > > from long term electrical stresses. If what you were proposing were
> > > safe then we should still not be enumerating everything in device trees,
> > > we should just be enabling all operations for every regulator in the
> > > system by default. The fact that you have to override this should be a
> > > warning sign that you shouldn't be doing it.
>
> > Well, we're doing low level stuff and (from experience) things like a
> > poor muxing option can cause physical damage too, and we don't have
> > any kind of protection or policy against that.
>
> Does the pinmux code actively go in and do things without being
> explicitly configured?

You have a point :)

> > So, what do you suggest for the kernel to have a behaviour
> > independant of what the bootloader state was, without adding a lot
> > of churn in each and every DTS?
>
> Well, I'm fairly happy with the current state. I think having some
> sort of board level property saying that undescribed regulators can
> be enabled and disabled (which I think is all that this is really
> doing) might be a viable solution?

It looks like configuration to me ;)

Especially since the semantic of it would be to disable something that
is not even declared in the DT in the first place.

Maxime

--
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20150413/1390e7d1/attachment.sig>