Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 29 May 2014 23:04:26 +0100 | From | Mark Brown <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/3] regulator: qcom-rpm: Regulator driver for the Qualcomm RPM |
| |
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 02:59:38PM -0700, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
> > No, this is awful and there's no way in hell that stuff like this should > > be implemented in a driver since there's clearly nothing at all hardware > > specific about it. The load tracking needs to be implemented in the > > framework if it's going to be implemented, and passing it up through the > > chain is obviously going to need some conversion and accounting for > > hardware conversion losses which doesn't seem to be happening here. > > > > I'm still unclear on what the summed current is going to be used for, > > though...
> You do load accumlation of all the requests from the drivers of the Linux > system, but in the Qualcomm system there might be load from the modem or the > sensor co-processor that we don't know about here. So additional accumulation > is done by the "pmic" - that is directly accessed by those other systems as > well.
So the resulting load is then set directly in hardware instead of setting a mode? That would be totally fine but it doesn't free us from having the logic for accumilating the current we know about in the core; that's the bit that's just at completely the wrong abstraction layer.
> I understand your strong opinions regarding this, so I will respin this to > forcefully set the regulator mode intead of merely casting a vote. I.e. > implement set_mode to actually set the mode.
Or just don't implement mode setting if it's only used by this crazy stuff.
> But as there are no users anymore, I could just let the constraints part go for > now and once we've figured out the dt part there will be some way of setting > these. Okay?
Yes, that's fine. [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |