lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Nov]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] mfd: twl4030-power: Fix poweroff with PM configuration enabled
On 11/04/14 17:42, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Igor Grinberg <grinberg@compulab.co.il> [141104 05:22]:
>> Hi Tony,
>>
>> On 11/02/14 20:07, Tony Lindgren wrote:
>>> Commit e7cd1d1eb16f ("mfd: twl4030-power: Add generic reset
>>> configuration") enabled configuring the PM features for twl4030.
>>>
>>> This caused poweroff command to fail on devices that have the
>>> BCI charger on twl4030 wired, or have power wired for VBUS.
>>> Instead of powering off, the device reboots. This is because
>>> voltage is detected on charger or VBUS with the default bits
>>> enabled for the power transition registers.
>>>
>>> To fix the issue, let's just clear VBUS and CHG bits as we want
>>> poweroff command to keep the system powered off.
>>
>> What about devices that really need to start once VBUS or CHG is connected?
>
> More handling can be added for some cases. With this patch the
> poweron bits will clear to defaults if power is completely removed.
> So start-up with VBUS and CHG works in that case.
>
> However, if you have a battery connected, and you poweroff, with
> this patch the device won't power up with VBUS or CHG connected.
>
> Note that most battery operated devices are not using the charger
> on twl4030 because it has issues charging a completely empty
> battery AFAIK. So most battery powered devices have been using an
> external USB charger chip that's not affected by this patch.
>
> We could consider exporting a function for the charger driver to
> configure the poweron mask. And we could also consider passing a
> mask in ti,use_poweroff = 0xff.

Ok. That sounds better to me.
Yet, if you say there are no such devices in practice,
IMHO, we can merge this.

>
>> It seems to me that forcing these bits on power off can break that kind of
>> devices and these settings should really be board specific.
>> What do you think?
>
> There's a patch series for "[RFC,01/16] kernel: Add support for
> poweroff handler call chain" that should help with that. For sure
> the poweroff handling needs to be board specific as some systems
> may need to use a GPIO to shut off a regulator powering something
> before powering off the SoC.

Yes, I've seen this series.
I'm not sure though that I understand how is this supposed
to be used with DT...
Through the regulator bindings?
Which will tell it to hook up on the call chain?


--
Regards,
Igor.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-11-04 19:01    [W:0.076 / U:4.732 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site