lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Jun]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] regulator: pwm: Fix regulator ramp delay for continuous mode
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 9:53 PM, Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote:
> The original commit adding support for continuous voltage mode didn't
> handle the regulator ramp delay properly. It treated the delay as a
> fixed delay in uS despite the property being defined as uV / uS. Let's
> adjust it. Luckily there appear to be no users of this ramp delay for
> PWM regulators (as per grepping through device trees in linuxnext).

My grepping agrees, though I'm sure I didn't do a very thorough job.

> Note also that the upper bound of usleep_range probably shouldn't be a
> full 1 ms longer than the lower bound since I've seen plenty of hardware
> with a ramp rate of ~5000 uS / uV and for small jumps the total delays
> are in the tens of uS. 1000 is way too much. We'll try to be dynamic
> and use 10%
>
> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
> ---
> Note that this patch is atop Boris's recent PWM regulator fixes. If
> desired it wouldn't be too hard to write it atop the old code, though
> quite honestly anyone using a PWM regulator should probably be using his
> new code.
>
> drivers/regulator/pwm-regulator.c | 9 +++++++--
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/regulator/pwm-regulator.c b/drivers/regulator/pwm-regulator.c
> index fa1c74c77bb0..de94d19f6e1f 100644
> --- a/drivers/regulator/pwm-regulator.c
> +++ b/drivers/regulator/pwm-regulator.c
> @@ -188,6 +188,7 @@ static int pwm_regulator_set_voltage(struct regulator_dev *rdev,
> struct pwm_state pstate;
> unsigned int diff_duty;
> unsigned int dutycycle;
> + int old_uV = pwm_regulator_get_voltage(rdev);
> int ret;
>
> pwm_init_state(drvdata->pwm, &pstate);
> @@ -219,8 +220,12 @@ static int pwm_regulator_set_voltage(struct regulator_dev *rdev,
> return ret;
> }
>
> - /* Delay required by PWM regulator to settle to the new voltage */
> - usleep_range(ramp_delay, ramp_delay + 1000);

I was curious about the side effects of the unconditional
usleep_range(ramp_delay, ...), even when ramp_delay is 0 (e.g., would
we ever sleep here for up to 1ms?), but apparently the implementation
optimizes the '0' case to be an unconditional, immediate wake-up. So
refactoring this shouldn't have any accidental effects.

> + if (ramp_delay == 0)
> + return 0;
> +
> + /* Ramp delay is in uV/uS. Adjust to uS and delay */
> + ramp_delay = DIV_ROUND_UP(abs(req_min_uV - old_uV), ramp_delay);
> + usleep_range(ramp_delay, ramp_delay + DIV_ROUND_UP(ramp_delay, 10));

Math checks out to me.

>
> return 0;
> }

Reviewed-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-06-28 18:41    [W:0.215 / U:0.268 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site