lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [May]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] regulator: core: use correct device for device supply lookup
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.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-05-19 21:41    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site