From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Warren Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] ARM: tegra: correct Colibri T20 regulator settings Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 13:53:53 -0700 Message-ID: <51EEED61.1070300@wwwdotorg.org> References: <1374442132-24040-1-git-send-email-dev@lynxeye.de> <1374442132-24040-5-git-send-email-dev@lynxeye.de> <51EEC669.9050703@wwwdotorg.org> <1374611752.1712.6.camel@tellur> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1374611752.1712.6.camel@tellur> Sender: linux-tegra-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Lucas Stach Cc: linux-tegra-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org On 07/23/2013 01:35 PM, Lucas Stach wrote: > Am Dienstag, den 23.07.2013, 11:07 -0700 schrieb Stephen Warren: >> On 07/21/2013 02:28 PM, Lucas Stach wrote: ... >>> SM2 is not a the parent of LDO regs, but actually the DDR regulator. The >>> Colibri uses a different version of the TPS with other voltage mapping >>> tables for SM2, currently we cheat by setting a fake 3,2V which results >>> in 1,8V physical. ... >> But is this a regression? If not, how far back in CC: stable should this >> change go? > > This is not a regression. It was introduced with the original Colibri > T20 commit and was caused by Toradex not providing any schematics for > the Module plus me not physically checking this voltage rail before > pushing things out. FYI, the reason I ask is that there's more push-back on adding patches late in the rc cycle (or after release, to -stable) for things that are not regressions. A safety issue like over-voltage might well still qualify to be accepted, but fixes for regressions are even more likely to be accepted.