From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keerthy Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] mfd: palmas: Reset the POWERHOLD mux during power off Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 17:06:03 +0530 Message-ID: <78ad0c4c-2746-9f3d-e070-1042c1d9f297@ti.com> References: <1478754560-27923-1-git-send-email-j-keerthy@ti.com> <1478754560-27923-4-git-send-email-j-keerthy@ti.com> <20161122130308.GE316@dell.lan> <20170324113014.fpkfoc5n7qpo2l5d@dell> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from lelnx193.ext.ti.com ([198.47.27.77]:11028 "EHLO lelnx193.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751314AbdCXLgN (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Mar 2017 07:36:13 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20170324113014.fpkfoc5n7qpo2l5d@dell> Sender: linux-gpio-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org To: Lee Jones Cc: tony@atomide.com, robh+dt@kernel.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, nm@ti.com, t-kristo@ti.com On Friday 24 March 2017 05:00 PM, Lee Jones wrote: > On Fri, 24 Mar 2017, Keerthy wrote: > >> >> >> On Tuesday 22 November 2016 06:33 PM, Lee Jones wrote: >>> On Thu, 10 Nov 2016, Keerthy wrote: >>> >>>> POWERHOLD signal has higher priority over the DEV_ON bit. >>>> So power off will not happen if the POWERHOLD is held high. >>>> Hence reset the MUX to GPIO_7 mode to release the POWERHOLD >>>> and the DEV_ON bit to take effect to power off the PMIC. >>>> >>>> PMIC Power off happens in dire situations like thermal shutdown >>>> so irrespective of the POWERHOLD setting go ahead and turn off >>>> the powerhold. Currently poweroff is broken on boards that have >>>> powerhold enabled. This fixes poweroff on those boards. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Keerthy >>>> --- >>>> >>>> Changes in v2: >>>> >>>> * Changed pr_err to dev_err >>>> * removed redundant boolean variable override-powerhold >>>> >>>> drivers/mfd/palmas.c | 14 ++++++++++++++ >>>> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+) >>> >>> Applied, thanks. >> >> Lee Jones, >> >> For some strange reason this patch is missing! >> The other patch in the series is applied through mfd tree but somehow >> this particular patch is missed out. >> >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9420631/ is applied. >> >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9420655/ is not. >> >> I tried applying this very patch and it applies cleanly on the next >> branch. Let me know if you want me to send this again on top of latest >> next branch. > > Sorry about this. > > Reapplied and re-pushed. Thanks Lee Jones. > >>>> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/palmas.c b/drivers/mfd/palmas.c >>>> index ee9e9ea..da90124 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/mfd/palmas.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/mfd/palmas.c >>>> @@ -430,6 +430,20 @@ static void palmas_power_off(void) >>>> { >>>> unsigned int addr; >>>> int ret, slave; >>>> + struct device_node *np = palmas_dev->dev->of_node; >>>> + >>>> + if (of_property_read_bool(np, "ti,palmas-override-powerhold")) { >>>> + addr = PALMAS_BASE_TO_REG(PALMAS_PU_PD_OD_BASE, >>>> + PALMAS_PRIMARY_SECONDARY_PAD2); >>>> + slave = PALMAS_BASE_TO_SLAVE(PALMAS_PU_PD_OD_BASE); >>>> + >>>> + ret = regmap_update_bits(palmas_dev->regmap[slave], addr, >>>> + PALMAS_PRIMARY_SECONDARY_PAD2_GPIO_7_MASK, 0); >>>> + if (ret) >>>> + dev_err(palmas_dev->dev, >>>> + "Unable to write PRIMARY_SECONDARY_PAD2 %d\n", >>>> + ret); >>>> + } >>>> >>>> slave = PALMAS_BASE_TO_SLAVE(PALMAS_PMU_CONTROL_BASE); >>>> addr = PALMAS_BASE_TO_REG(PALMAS_PMU_CONTROL_BASE, PALMAS_DEV_CTRL); >>> >