Re: Regulators vis-a-vis Power Domains

Liam Girdwood
2010-04-06T20:44:00Z

On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 16:58 +0100, Ben Dooks wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 04, 2010 at 02:10:58PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 03, 2010 at 08:12:56PM +0200, Sundar R IYER wrote:
> >
> > Please fix your mail client to word wrap within paragraphs; not doing
> > this makes your messages harder to read and reply to. I've reflowed below.
> >
> > > 1. The documentation for the regulators mentions "power domains" and
> > > "switches" to be modeled as regulators. I am planning to model multiple
> > > "switches" for controlling supplies to various peripherals from a main
> > > master regulator as multiple regulators, childed from the parent
> > > regulator. Is this the right way to proceed ahead? Further the options
> >
> > If you want to do this in the regulator framework, yes.
> >
> > > for these switches will be only a logical on/off. (BTW, I saw lots of TI
> > > stuff which is something related to power domains, but it doesn't model
> > > the regulator framework.)
> >
> > Nor does the SH stuff. With the power domains of a CPU it often doesn't
> > buy terribly much to use the regulator framework - the power domains are
> > often a small part of a much bigger picture for the CPU internal power
> > management, often incorporating thing
>
> I personally think there is merit to having the regulator framework at
> least play a part in these, as is possible the powerdomains are being
> fed from external regulators and/or power switches. I see it as good
> way of using existing support to do useful work.

I tend to agree here, although I think it's still early days for this
technology and maybe some hybrid approach will eventually emerge.

Fwiw, I'm adding regulator support to other types of tightly coupled
CPU/DSP voltage control i.e. OMAP4 SmartReflex.

Liam

--
Freelance Developer, SlimLogic Ltd
ASoC and Voltage Regulator Maintainer.