From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751029AbdGMFJl (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Jul 2017 01:09:41 -0400 Received: from mail-pf0-f180.google.com ([209.85.192.180]:34942 "EHLO mail-pf0-f180.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750933AbdGMFJj (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Jul 2017 01:09:39 -0400 Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 10:39:34 +0530 From: Viresh Kumar To: Chen-Yu Tsai Cc: Rob Herring , Mark Rutland , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , Vincent Guittot , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Stephen Boyd , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Mark Brown , Rajendra Nayak , Shiraz Hashim , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" Subject: Re: [RFC v2 5/6] drivers: boot_constraint: Add initial DT bindings Message-ID: <20170713050934.GB352@vireshk-i7> References: <0610277aef9830cff53b7b53cf41cc54886fdc7f.1499770771.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 13-07-17, 10:52, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: > I'm afraid the regulator case still doesn't make sense. The voltage > constraints should be set within each supplies device node. This was > explained in the discussion in v1 [1]. I thought we were discussing about something I mentioned in one of my example but never to a point that the regulator problem doesn't exist at all. Perhaps I misunderstood your concerns. Anyway, lemme try once more with a better example. Regulator shared by: LCD and MMC (both can do DVFS) and the min/max constraint that can be set by the consumers of the regulator (both LCD/MMC) are: 1.5 V to 3 V. The bootloader has programmed the LCD to work at the highest pixel frequency, which needs the voltage to be in range from 2.5 - 3 V. Now MMC can get probed first and it can try to bring the voltages below 2.5 V. Though, 1.5 - 2.5 is a valid range for the LCD, but not at the current pixel frequency. Does that sound like a valid problem? -- viresh