From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Brown Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] regulator: pwm: Add support for a fixed delay after duty cycle changes Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 20:24:19 +0100 Message-ID: <20160901192419.GL5967@sirena.org.uk> References: <1472617277-30814-1-git-send-email-dianders@chromium.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2284081235463652093==" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1472617277-30814-1-git-send-email-dianders-F7+t8E8rja9g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "Linux-rockchip" Errors-To: linux-rockchip-bounces+glpar-linux-rockchip=m.gmane.org-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org To: Douglas Anderson Cc: mark.rutland-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org, devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, briannorris-F7+t8E8rja9g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org, lgirdwood-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, robh+dt-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-rockchip-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, mka-F7+t8E8rja9g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org, javier-0uQlZySMnqxg9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org --===============2284081235463652093== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="HBg0C3yr6HVa1ZCc" Content-Disposition: inline --HBg0C3yr6HVa1ZCc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 09:21:15PM -0700, Douglas Anderson wrote: > A change of the duty cycle doesn't necessarily cause an immediate switch > to the target voltage. On many PWM regulators there is a fixed "settle > time" (irrespective of the jump size) that we need to wait after an > upward jump. This change introduces the device tree property > "settle-time-up-us" which allows us to specify a fixed delay after a > voltage increase. Why is this specific to regulators implemented with PWM controllers? Most DCDCs have a PWM element and the concept of a hard time limit for transition rather than a ramp rate doesn't seem like it'd be unique. --HBg0C3yr6HVa1ZCc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJXyIBiAAoJECTWi3JdVIfQOD8H/0qFr0dDOkmyN+xoLzbttad0 A8vebSkbaWa2XxU5XCCFbm0r06OqEOWoEOsGlw8tvDAouFDOJjhQcyp6X46PQ0Bq dcR7BNXyKUDjeiUcMs+WeKSJ9j5eIUkaeoquV5q1IJag0q3p8Z0ZAp5bJofS41DA dxLdvOwNuPthl0Feo614a7wSV8wyjyItcEDgit58Q49bTnRxFHWVWobXTQNghlAh FuvAfFLMJWL9YZF42IwwDqeN+cAhkJNreCLMNP+gHoSk94Mxllsjs3/NKnwUJ8Un SlZjKP0fBXhDjk7AMBe2A4TtxWEorYAJ2SLTg1YaMnue+PB/RNDoEGiElT4ada0= =mzHm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --HBg0C3yr6HVa1ZCc-- --===============2284081235463652093== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Linux-rockchip mailing list Linux-rockchip-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip --===============2284081235463652093==--