public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Bengt Jönsson" <bengt.g.jonsson@stericsson.com>
To: Axel Lin <axel.lin@ingics.com>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
	Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>,
	Yvan FILLION <yvan.fillion@stericsson.com>,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: ab8500: Fix get_mode for shared mode regulators
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 13:34:06 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <516BE5AE.3020703@stericsson.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFRkauDhqwcHtJU_uBf8wMmKr8DohHZnU6DNPBnzZhTp9-eBfg@mail.gmail.com>

On 04/15/2013 10:50 AM, Axel Lin wrote:
>> My understanding is for shared mode regulators:
>> It can be in LP mode only when *BOTH* are in LP mode.
>> If only one of the regulator in HP mode, then *BOTH* should be in HP mode.
>> Did I misunderstand something?
Your understanding is correct.
> Let me put this issue this way:
>
> Current code behavior:
> get_mode() returns IDLE if only one lp_mode_req flag is true, but mode
> register value is HP.
>
> AB8540_LDO_ANAMIC1      AB8540_LDO_ANAMIC2      mode register
> get_mode() returns
> lp_mode_req=true        lp_mode_req=true        HP
> REGULATOR_MODE_NORMAL
> lp_mode_req=true        lp_mode_req=false       HP
> REGULATOR_MODE_IDLE
> lp_mode_req=false       lp_mode_req=true        HP
> REGULATOR_MODE_IDLE
> lp_mode_req=false       lp_mode_req=false       LP
> REGULATOR_MODE_IDLE
I think it looks like this:

AB8540_LDO_ANAMIC1      AB8540_LDO_ANAMIC2      mode register
get_mode() returns
lp_mode_req=true        lp_mode_req=true        LP
REGULATOR_MODE_IDLE     REGULATOR_MODE_IDLE
lp_mode_req=true        lp_mode_req=false       HP
REGULATOR_MODE_IDLE     REGULATOR_MODE_NORMAL
lp_mode_req=false       lp_mode_req=true        HP
REGULATOR_MODE_NORMAL   REGULATOR_MODE_IDLE
lp_mode_req=false       lp_mode_req=false       HP
REGULATOR_MODE_NORMAL   REGULATOR_MODE_NORMAL

> with this path:
> mode register value is consistent with get_mode().
>
> AB8540_LDO_ANAMIC1      AB8540_LDO_ANAMIC2      mode register
> get_mode() returns
> lp_mode_req=true        lp_mode_req=true        HP
> REGULATOR_MODE_NORMAL
> lp_mode_req=true        lp_mode_req=false       HP
> REGULATOR_MODE_NORMAL
> lp_mode_req=false       lp_mode_req=true        HP
> REGULATOR_MODE_NORMAL
> lp_mode_req=false       lp_mode_req=false       LP
> REGULATOR_MODE_IDLE

And like this:

AB8540_LDO_ANAMIC1      AB8540_LDO_ANAMIC2      mode register
get_mode() returns
lp_mode_req=true        lp_mode_req=true        LP
REGULATOR_MODE_IDLE     REGULATOR_MODE_IDLE
lp_mode_req=true        lp_mode_req=false       HP
REGULATOR_MODE_NORMAL   REGULATOR_MODE_NORMAL
lp_mode_req=false       lp_mode_req=true        HP
REGULATOR_MODE_NORMAL   REGULATOR_MODE_NORMAL
lp_mode_req=false       lp_mode_req=false       HP
REGULATOR_MODE_NORMAL   REGULATOR_MODE_NORMAL


I guess what you don't like with the current approach is that the driver returns REGULATOR_MODE_IDLE in some cases where the mode register is set to LP. But I think, with patch applied, the control may be wrong in some cases because the regulator framework will call get_mode and see that the mode is already correct and not call set_mode so lp_mode_req will not get updated. I realised my previous example was incorrect so here I describe another example:

0. Start condition:
ANAMIC1 is requested in LP mode (lp_mode_req=true) and ANAMIC2 is requested in HP mode (lp_mode_req=false).
So the mode register is set to HP.

1. Now ANAMIC1 is requested to HP mode from consumer side. The regulator framework checks the current mode with get_mode which returns HP. So the regulator framework returns without calling set_mode because the mode is already correct.
For ANAMIC1 lp_mode_req=true and for ANAMIC2 lp_mode_req=false (still).
The mode register will be correct at HP.

2. If ANAMIC2 is now requested to LP mode from consumer side, the regulator framework calls get_mode which returns HP, so the framework calls set_mode.
In set_mode, the function checks the other regulator's status which is lp_mode_req=true. So the function will continue and set the regulator in LP mode even if it should not be.

Bengt


  reply	other threads:[~2013-04-15 11:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-04-08 12:31 [PATCH] regulator: ab8500: Fix get_mode for shared mode regulators Axel Lin
2013-04-13 14:10 ` Axel Lin
2013-04-15  8:09   ` Lee Jones
2013-04-15  8:03 ` Bengt Jönsson
2013-04-15  8:34   ` Axel Lin
2013-04-15  8:50     ` Axel Lin
2013-04-15 11:34       ` Bengt Jönsson [this message]
2013-04-15 12:13         ` Axel Lin
2013-04-15 12:41           ` Bengt Jönsson
2013-04-15 14:11             ` Axel Lin
2013-04-15 14:48               ` Bengt Jönsson
2013-04-15 16:07                 ` 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=516BE5AE.3020703@stericsson.com \
    --to=bengt.g.jonsson@stericsson.com \
    --cc=axel.lin@ingics.com \
    --cc=broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
    --cc=lee.jones@linaro.org \
    --cc=lgirdwood@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=yvan.fillion@stericsson.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