public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc: "lrg@ti.com" <lrg@ti.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: core: use correct device for device supply lookup
Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 00:33:32 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4FB7EE84.7090704@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120519182658.GB4039@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>

On Saturday 19 May 2012 11:56 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> * PGP Signed by an unknown key
>
> On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 11:26:00PM +0530, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>
>> At the time of registration,  as becasue there is valid
>> reg_desc->supply_name and hence it tries to lookup the entry for
>> <name>-supply i.e. v2-supply in this case for getting regulator_dev.
>> regulator_register() {
>> static struct regulator_dev *regulator_dev_lookup(struct device *dev,
>>                                                    const char *supply,
>>                                                    int *ret)
>> {
>>          /* first do a dt based lookup */
>> ---->  Checked here, dev is not null but dev->of_node is null.
>>          if (dev&&  dev->of_node) {
>>
>> ------------>The issue is that I am not getting here as dev->node is
>> null here.
> But how is this related your patch?  What your patch does is change
> things so that instead of trying to look up the supply in the context of
> whatever device was passed in by the driver we try to look it up in the
> context of the class device we create.  I can't think of any situation
> where I'd expect that to make matters any better - the class device
> should certainly never appear in the device tree and isn't going to have
> a stable name for non-DT systems either.
>
> I'm just not seeing any problem in the core here.  It sounds to me like
> the problem might be either with the regulator driver doing something
> odd with the struct device it specifies when registering the regulator
> (though I'm guessing that it's the tps65910 which looks to be doing
> something sensible currently) or the device tree for the board being
> odd.  Looking at the changes you posted to tps65910 I suspect the issue
> is that you've changed the driver to pass in the platform device for the
> regulators as their device rather than the I2C device but it's the I2C
> device which appears in the device tree bindings.
>
My board dts file is
       pmu: tps65910@d2 {
                 compatible = "ti,tps65910";
                 reg = <0xd2>;
                 interrupt-parent = <&intc>;
                 interrupts = < 0 118 0x04 >;

                 #gpio-cells = <2>;
                 gpio-controller;

                 #interrupt-cells = <2>;
                 interrupt-controller;

                 regulators {
                         vdd1_reg: vdd1 {
                                 regulator-min-microvolt = < 600000>;
                                 regulator-max-microvolt = <1500000>;
                                 regulator-always-on;
                                 regulator-boot-on;
                                 ti,regulator-ext-sleep-control = <0>;
                         };
                         vdd2_reg: vdd2 {
                                 regulator-min-microvolt = < 600000>;
                                 regulator-max-microvolt = <1500000>;
                                 regulator-always-on;
                                 regulator-boot-on;
                                 ti,regulator-ext-sleep-control = <4>;
                         };
             };
     };

So currently, when regulator_register gets called in 
tps65910-regulator.c, it sets the
config.dev = tps65910->dev;
config.of_node as
                 config.of_node = 
of_find_node_by_name(tps65910->dev->of_node,
                                                         info->name);
So here config.of_node always shows NULL as the in 
tps65910->dev->of_node does not have name same as info->name ie. 
regulator name like vdd1, vdd2.

So I changed it to pass the node containing"regulators" for 
of_find_node_by_name() and then it got proper of_node like vdd1_reg or 
vdd2_reg as per info_name.

Now this node for vdd1_reg, vdd2_reg, is being passed to 
regulator_register. And for lookup of node, we should use the 
config.of_node which is set.

If we still want to use the parent device for lookup then other way to 
use the config.of_node is to take the parameter of device node in this api.

For this it is require to change the apis as

static struct regulator_dev *regulator_dev_lookup(struct device *dev,
                                                   const char *supply,
                                                   int *ret)

to
static struct regulator_dev *regulator_dev_lookup(struct device *dev, 
struct device_node *dev_node,
                                                   const char *supply,
                                                   int *ret)


and at the time of regulator registration, we should pass config->of_node.
In this way we can still pass parent device and of_node which is passed 
by  regulator driver.
         if (supply) {
                 struct regulator_dev *r;

                 r = regulator_dev_lookup(dev, config->of_node, supply, 
&ret);


> If there is a change needed in the core you need to explain what you
> believe that change will do.
>
I though this is straight but seems it is becoming more complex now.
I will describe all this details if we agree to change require.


  reply	other threads:[~2012-05-19 19:08 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-05-19 14:14 [PATCH] regulator: core: use correct device for device supply lookup Laxman Dewangan
2012-05-19 16:41 ` Mark Brown
2012-05-19 17:14   ` Laxman Dewangan
2012-05-19 17:20     ` Laxman Dewangan
2012-05-19 17:40       ` Mark Brown
2012-05-19 17:56         ` Laxman Dewangan
2012-05-19 18:26           ` Mark Brown
2012-05-19 19:03             ` Laxman Dewangan [this message]
2012-05-19 20:50               ` Mark Brown
2012-05-19 21:13                 ` Laxman Dewangan
2012-05-19 23:13                   ` Mark Brown
2012-05-20  7:34                     ` Laxman Dewangan
2012-05-20  9:01                       ` Mark Brown
     [not found]                         ` <4FB8C9EF.7010400@nvidia.com>
2012-05-20 12:06                           ` Mark Brown
2012-05-20 12:14                             ` Laxman Dewangan
2012-05-20 12:10                         ` Laxman Dewangan
2012-05-19 17:28     ` Mark Brown

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4FB7EE84.7090704@nvidia.com \
    --to=ldewangan@nvidia.com \
    --cc=broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lrg@ti.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox