From: viresh.kumar@linaro.org (Viresh Kumar)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [RFC 0/5] drivers: Add boot constraints core
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 10:42:03 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170630051203.GY29665@vireshk-i7> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGb2v641UyXS5ccmo0j9Dvty8soB+DqwF2w8zKHsM78oK7b1aw@mail.gmail.com>
On 30-06-17, 12:22, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> > On 30-06-17, 12:05, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> >> I also want to mention that for DT based platforms, this constraint
> >> should already be set in the device tree for the regulator, so the
> >> scenario where DMA comes up and sets a voltage level that LCD cannot
> >> use should not even be possible.
>
> What I'm saying is for the DT case, the constraints are already limited
> to the intersection of all users, regardless of whether they are turned
> on or not.
Right, but someone needs to get the regulator first to have that
considered by the regulator core while deciding the final range.
Both DMA and LCD driver do regulator_get() for their devices but if
only DMA driver is probed until now, then the regulator core wouldn't
consider LCD as regulator_get() is never called for LCD.
> I think what you mean is that the DT constraints are the union of all
> consumer constraints (1.8 - 3.0 V in this case), then each consumer
> comes in and adds its own constraints. And for such a design, the kernel
> needs to know which and what constraints to apply.
Sorry, I am confused with what you just said and not sure if I
understand it completely.
Each consumer DT node will have its own set of constraints for the
regulator device. The kernel will do regulator_get() for them one by
one, based on when their drivers get probed. And an intersection of
those constraints (which already did regulator_get()) will be used by
the regulator core.
Now this series is saying that even if the driver didn't come up (for
LCD) and haven't done its regulator_get() yet, consider that device's
constraint while calculating the target voltage for the regulator.
> Either way regulators already support constraints, so they are easier
> to deal with. Clocks on the other hand, while the core does support
> clock rate constraints, AFAIK no one really uses or supports them.
Yeah, so I started with just regulators and that's when Mark suggested
to do something generic which can be reused by other resource types.
We may end up covering clk for sure I believe. Not sure yet about
other resource types though.
--
viresh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-06-30 5:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-06-28 10:26 [RFC 0/5] drivers: Add boot constraints core Viresh Kumar
2017-06-28 10:26 ` [RFC 1/5] " Viresh Kumar
2017-06-28 15:55 ` Randy Dunlap
2017-06-29 3:51 ` Viresh Kumar
2017-06-29 12:50 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2017-06-29 14:49 ` Viresh Kumar
2017-06-28 10:26 ` [RFC 2/5] drivers: boot_constraint: Add support for supply constraints Viresh Kumar
2017-06-28 10:26 ` [RFC 3/5] drivers: boot_constraint: Add boot_constraints_disable kernel parameter Viresh Kumar
2017-06-28 15:51 ` Randy Dunlap
2017-06-28 10:26 ` [RFC 4/5] drivers: boot_constraint: Add debugfs support Viresh Kumar
2017-06-28 15:46 ` Randy Dunlap
2017-06-29 4:11 ` Viresh Kumar
2017-06-28 10:26 ` [RFC 5/5] drivers: Code to test boot constraints Viresh Kumar
2017-06-29 12:40 ` [RFC 0/5] drivers: Add boot constraints core Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
2017-06-29 14:47 ` Viresh Kumar
2017-06-29 15:06 ` Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
2017-06-30 3:16 ` Viresh Kumar
2017-06-30 3:33 ` Chen-Yu Tsai
2017-06-30 3:55 ` Viresh Kumar
2017-06-30 4:05 ` Chen-Yu Tsai
2017-06-30 4:12 ` Viresh Kumar
2017-06-30 4:22 ` Chen-Yu Tsai
2017-06-30 5:12 ` Viresh Kumar [this message]
2017-06-30 6:36 ` Chen-Yu Tsai
2017-06-30 8:43 ` Viresh Kumar
2017-06-30 12:10 ` Mark Brown
2017-07-03 6:15 ` Viresh Kumar
2017-07-03 15:07 ` Mark Brown
2017-07-04 6:45 ` Viresh Kumar
2017-06-30 12:12 ` Mark Brown
2017-06-29 12:49 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2017-06-29 13:05 ` Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
2017-06-29 14:58 ` Viresh Kumar
2017-06-29 15:43 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2017-06-29 21:00 ` Stephen Boyd
2017-07-05 22:07 ` Rob Clark
2017-07-07 22:39 ` Stephen Boyd
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=20170630051203.GY29665@vireshk-i7 \
--to=viresh.kumar@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox