Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 29 Nov 2022 13:25:20 +0530 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] hwmon: (pmbus/core): Update regulator flag map | From | Naresh Solanki <> |
| |
Hi Guenter,
On 29-11-2022 04:11 am, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 11/28/22 09:47, Naresh Solanki wrote: >> Add regulator flag map for PMBUS status byte & status input. >> >> Signed-off-by: Naresh Solanki <Naresh.Solanki@9elements.com> > > You are adding a lot of input errors here. The regulator documentation > only covers output errors. I am not sure if this set of changes is > really appropriate. You'll have to make a much better case for those > changes; > from what I can see they are all controversial and were originally left out > on purpose. I felt it may be worth to monitor status input, but you feel otherwise then shall I remove this in next revision ? > >> --- >> drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus_core.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++-------- >> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus_core.c >> b/drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus_core.c >> index 95e95783972a..f5caceaaef2a 100644 >> --- a/drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus_core.c >> +++ b/drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus_core.c >> @@ -2752,6 +2752,15 @@ struct pmbus_regulator_status_category { >> static const struct pmbus_regulator_status_category >> pmbus_regulator_flag_map[] = { >> { >> + .func = -1, > > This would need a comment. I don't really see the benefit over the original > code. I pulled that in so as to handle it in same way as other status register. > >> + .reg = PMBUS_STATUS_BYTE, >> + .bits = (const struct pmbus_regulator_status_assoc[]) { >> + { PB_STATUS_IOUT_OC, REGULATOR_ERROR_OVER_CURRENT }, >> + { PB_STATUS_VOUT_OV, REGULATOR_ERROR_REGULATION_OUT }, >> + { PB_STATUS_VIN_UV, REGULATOR_ERROR_UNDER_VOLTAGE }, >> + { }, >> + }, >> + }, { >> .func = PMBUS_HAVE_STATUS_VOUT, >> .reg = PMBUS_STATUS_VOUT, >> .bits = (const struct pmbus_regulator_status_assoc[]) { >> @@ -2768,6 +2777,7 @@ static const struct >> pmbus_regulator_status_category pmbus_regulator_flag_map[] = >> { PB_IOUT_OC_WARNING, >> REGULATOR_ERROR_OVER_CURRENT_WARN }, >> { PB_IOUT_OC_FAULT, REGULATOR_ERROR_OVER_CURRENT }, >> { PB_IOUT_OC_LV_FAULT, REGULATOR_ERROR_OVER_CURRENT }, >> + { PB_POUT_OP_FAULT, REGULATOR_ERROR_OVER_CURRENT }, > > OP_FAULT (power fault) and over current are really not the same thing. > I agree. But thats best I could think of. Not sure if there is better REGULATOR_ERROR_* code for this scenario. Suggestions? >> { }, >> }, >> }, { >> @@ -2778,6 +2788,18 @@ static const struct >> pmbus_regulator_status_category pmbus_regulator_flag_map[] = >> { PB_TEMP_OT_FAULT, REGULATOR_ERROR_OVER_TEMP }, >> { }, >> }, >> + }, { >> + .func = PMBUS_HAVE_STATUS_INPUT, >> + .reg = PMBUS_STATUS_INPUT, >> + .bits = (const struct pmbus_regulator_status_assoc[]) { >> + { PB_IIN_OC_FAULT, REGULATOR_ERROR_OVER_CURRENT }, >> + { PB_IIN_OC_WARNING, >> REGULATOR_ERROR_OVER_CURRENT_WARN }, >> + { PB_VOLTAGE_UV_FAULT, REGULATOR_ERROR_UNDER_VOLTAGE }, >> + { PB_VOLTAGE_UV_WARNING, >> REGULATOR_ERROR_UNDER_VOLTAGE_WARN }, >> + { PB_VOLTAGE_OV_WARNING, >> REGULATOR_ERROR_OVER_VOLTAGE_WARN }, >> + { PB_VOLTAGE_OV_FAULT, >> REGULATOR_ERROR_OVER_VOLTAGE_WARN }, > > fault -> warning ? Shouldn't this be REGULATOR_ERROR_FAIL (Regulator > output has failed) ? > Yes. REGULATOR_ERROR_FAIL is best fit here. Will update in next revision. >> + { }, >> + }, >> }, >> }; >> @@ -2834,14 +2856,6 @@ static int >> pmbus_regulator_get_error_flags(struct regulator_dev *rdev, unsigned >> if (status & PB_STATUS_POWER_GOOD_N) >> *flags |= REGULATOR_ERROR_REGULATION_OUT; >> } >> - /* >> - * Unlike most other status bits, PB_STATUS_{IOUT_OC,VOUT_OV} are >> - * defined strictly as fault indicators (not warnings). >> - */ >> - if (status & PB_STATUS_IOUT_OC) >> - *flags |= REGULATOR_ERROR_OVER_CURRENT; >> - if (status & PB_STATUS_VOUT_OV) >> - *flags |= REGULATOR_ERROR_REGULATION_OUT; >> /* >> * If we haven't discovered any thermal faults or warnings via >> >> base-commit: 9494c53e1389b120ba461899207ac8a3aab2632c >
| |