From: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>
Cc: <robh+dt@kernel.org>, <pawel.moll@arm.com>,
<mark.rutland@arm.com>, <ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk>,
<lgirdwood@gmail.com>, <bjorn.andersson@sonymobile.com>,
<swarren@wwwdotorg.org>, <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: DT: Add support to scale ramp delay based on platform behavior
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 09:18:46 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56D5111E.6090606@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160301022326.GC18327@sirena.org.uk>
On Tuesday 01 March 2016 07:53 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> * PGP Signed by an unknown key
>
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 09:47:51AM -0800, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
>> On Mon 29 Feb 06:40 PST 2016, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>>> It is observed that voltage change in given rail affected by the load
>>> and the capacitor in the rail. This may cause the slow ramp in voltage
>>> against what PMIC has programmed.
>> The regulator-ramp-delay is a variable you can tweak on a board basis,
>> so I'm not sure what benefit it gives to be able to add a scaling
>> factor to this.
>> In my experience your HW engineer will say "you have to wait X ms", not
>> "you have to wait 125% of X ms".
>> Can you please elaborate on why the original knob isn't sufficient?
> Right, this definitely feels like the wrong thing is being specified
> here (and also like the PMIC might be going out of spec, possibly as a
> result of being overloaded) and that the existing board specific
> controls should be used. It just doesn't correspond to the way people
> usually talk about specs for PMICs.
>
Most of PMICs offer to configure the slew rate (ramp time). For
discussion, I am considering MAX77620 LDOs provides option to 27mV/us
and 100mV/us.
HW team characterize the board and its rail and come up with the
following data:
- Configure PMIC to 27mV/us for ramp time.
- With this measured value of ramp on board is 10mV/us and it is safe
to assume 5mv/us to consider the board variations.
So we have now two input from HW team:
1. What should be configure in PMIC.
2. And for calculation, how much ramp need to be consider.
For (1), it is 25mV/us and for (2) which 540% (27 *100/5).
Currently, we can provide the 27mv/us as ramp-delay but do not have
option for scaling it.
My patch add for knob for (2).
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-03-01 4:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-02-29 14:40 [PATCH 1/2] regulator: DT: Add support to scale ramp delay based on platform behavior Laxman Dewangan
2016-02-29 14:40 ` [PATCH 2/2] regulator: " Laxman Dewangan
2016-02-29 17:47 ` [PATCH 1/2] regulator: DT: " Bjorn Andersson
2016-03-01 2:23 ` Mark Brown
2016-03-01 3:48 ` Laxman Dewangan [this message]
2016-03-02 3:38 ` Mark Brown
2016-03-02 3:35 ` Laxman Dewangan
2016-03-02 4:35 ` Mark Brown
2016-03-02 6:12 ` Laxman Dewangan
2016-03-15 13:41 ` Laxman Dewangan
2016-03-15 14:48 ` Mark Brown
2016-03-16 11:30 ` Laxman Dewangan
2016-03-19 4:31 ` Bjorn Andersson
2016-03-19 8:35 ` Laxman Dewangan
2016-03-30 13:29 ` Laxman Dewangan
2016-03-30 18:16 ` Mark Brown
2016-03-31 7:06 ` Laxman Dewangan
2016-03-31 16:51 ` Mark Brown
2016-03-31 17:13 ` Laxman Dewangan
2016-03-31 17:47 ` Mark Brown
2016-03-31 17:47 ` Laxman Dewangan
2016-03-31 18:31 ` Mark Brown
2016-03-31 18:31 ` Laxman Dewangan
2016-03-31 18:45 ` Mark Brown
2016-03-31 18:39 ` Laxman Dewangan
2016-03-31 18:59 ` Mark Brown
2016-03-31 18:59 ` Laxman Dewangan
2016-03-31 19:22 ` Mark Brown
2016-03-31 19:48 ` Laxman Dewangan
2016-03-31 20:39 ` Mark Brown
2016-04-01 7:15 ` Laxman Dewangan
2016-04-01 16:11 ` Mark Brown
2016-04-05 8:01 ` Laxman Dewangan
2016-04-12 1:02 ` Mark Brown
2016-04-12 13:29 ` Laxman Dewangan
2016-04-13 6:53 ` Mark Brown
2016-04-19 10:01 ` Laxman Dewangan
2016-04-19 10:55 ` Mark Brown
2016-04-19 10:56 ` Laxman Dewangan
2016-04-19 15:47 ` 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=56D5111E.6090606@nvidia.com \
--to=ldewangan@nvidia.com \
--cc=bjorn.andersson@linaro.org \
--cc=bjorn.andersson@sonymobile.com \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk \
--cc=lgirdwood@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=pawel.moll@arm.com \
--cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=swarren@wwwdotorg.org \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).