Re: [PATCH] regulator: rk808: Add apply_bit for BUCK3 on RK809

Re: [PATCH] regulator: rk808: Add apply_bit for BUCK3 on RK809

[Mikhail Rudenko]

Gentle ping.

Also Cc more potential reviewers.

On 2024-10-17 at 21:37 +03, Mikhail Rudenko <mike.rudenko@gmail.com> wrote:

> Currently, RK809's BUCK3 regulator is modelled in the driver as a
> configurable regulator with 0.5-2.4V voltage range. But the voltage
> setting is not actually applied, because when bit 6 of
> PMIC_POWER_CONFIG register is set to 0 (default), BUCK3 output voltage
> is determined by the external feedback resistor. Fix this, by setting
> bit 6 when voltage selection is set. Existing users which do not
> specify voltage constraints in their device trees will not be affected
> by this change, since no voltage setting is applied in those cases,
> and bit 6 is not enabled.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mikhail Rudenko <mike.rudenko@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/regulator/rk808-regulator.c | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/regulator/rk808-regulator.c b/drivers/regulator/rk808-regulator.c
> index 14b60abd6afc..01a8d0487918 100644
> --- a/drivers/regulator/rk808-regulator.c
> +++ b/drivers/regulator/rk808-regulator.c
> @@ -1379,6 +1379,8 @@ static const struct regulator_desc rk809_reg[] = {
>  		.n_linear_ranges = ARRAY_SIZE(rk817_buck1_voltage_ranges),
>  		.vsel_reg = RK817_BUCK3_ON_VSEL_REG,
>  		.vsel_mask = RK817_BUCK_VSEL_MASK,
> +		.apply_reg = RK817_POWER_CONFIG,
> +		.apply_bit = RK817_BUCK3_FB_RES_INTER,
>  		.enable_reg = RK817_POWER_EN_REG(0),
>  		.enable_mask = ENABLE_MASK(RK817_ID_DCDC3),
>  		.enable_val = ENABLE_MASK(RK817_ID_DCDC3),
>
> ---
> base-commit: 9852d85ec9d492ebef56dc5f229416c925758edc
> change-id: 20241017-rk809-dcdc3-388632b4da03
>

--
Best regards,
Mikhail Rudenko

Re: [PATCH] regulator: rk808: Add apply_bit for BUCK3 on RK809

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1093 bytes --]

On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 06:20:55PM +0300, Mikhail Rudenko wrote:
> Gentle ping.

Please don't send content free pings and please allow a reasonable time
for review.  People get busy, go on holiday, attend conferences and so 
on so unless there is some reason for urgency (like critical bug fixes)
please allow at least a couple of weeks for review.  If there have been
review comments then people may be waiting for those to be addressed.

Sending content free pings adds to the mail volume (if they are seen at
all) which is often the problem and since they can't be reviewed
directly if something has gone wrong you'll have to resend the patches
anyway, so sending again is generally a better approach though there are
some other maintainers who like them - if in doubt look at how patches
for the subsystem are normally handled.

Please don't top post, reply in line with needed context.  This allows
readers to readily follow the flow of conversation and understand what
you are talking about and also helps ensure that everything in the
discussion is being addressed.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]