lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Dec]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v7 1/6] DONOTMERGE: arm64: dts: ti: Add TI TPS65219 PMIC support for AM642 SK board.
On 18:22-20221215, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 11:54:11AM -0600, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> > On 16:09-20221215, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > > That proposal looks really non-idiomatic and quite unusual, if there's a
> > > fixed voltage supply to the LDO I'd expect to see it modeled as a fixed
> > > voltage regulator. I'm not sure what the use of bypass here is trying
> > > to accomplish TBH.
>
> > The problem is this - the default NVM in the PMIC is setup such that
> > VSET value =3.3v and bypass bit set (makes sense since the vin=3.3v).
>
> This implies no voltage drop over the LDO? Sounds a bit suspect.

Not the choice I'd probably have made ;)

>
> > Now the constraint is bypass bit cannot be changed without the LDO
> > being switched off.
>
> > regulator-allow-bypass property allows us to control bypass bit, but we
> > should'nt toggle it when LDO is active. Not providing the property
> > implies the bit wont be toggled by regulator core either.
>
> > What we need is a scheme that will disable the bypass bit with the
> > intent of operating the LDO with just the vset field. I did'nt find it
> > possible atm.. unless I am mistaken..
>
> Can the consumer just disable the supply as part of startup? Though
> that's starting to feel rather board specific. There's not really a

Yeah - this happens to be SDcard supply (at least in my case).. I'd
rather not change the mmc host or core layer to handle a case where
LDO happened to be in bypass. it is a regulator driver's problem, IMHO
how to provide the stated voltage OR fail to transition the voltage.

In this driver's case, it happily accepts and set the VSET voltage - for
example to 1.8V, but then, since the bypass bit is set, well, voltage
sticks around at 3.3v.

> good place to put a board specific setup process like that in the kernel
> at the minute, you'd ideally want the firmware to leave the device at
> least disabled if not actually out of bypass on startup so we don't have
> to deal with this. Ugh...

Yeah - that would be the other option - I could plug this bypass clear
in the u-boot or someplace early so that the LDO behaves

Also the reason why I did'nt send the mentioned patch (or the like
upstream and the patch was done just a couple of days back) were the following
questions:
a) Why would'nt we handle the case where bypass bit
is set AND voltage change implies bypass bit needs to be disabled? (i
would expect it to fail but if i did provide regulator-allow-bypass,
then if bypass is set AND requested-voltage != vin-supply, then i'd
have expected framework to probably disable bypass and switch voltage
to new voltage - which this driver, based on it's constraint will say
"nope, cant do" - but that would be better than silently telling me
all good, setting vset and leaving the bypass bit on.)
b) If I wanted the LDO to poweroff the bypass bit at start (define the
startup hardware condition), I dont seem to have a description for
that either.



--
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
Key (0xDDB5849D1736249D) / Fingerprint: F8A2 8693 54EB 8232 17A3 1A34 DDB5 849D 1736 249D

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-12-15 22:44    [W:0.169 / U:0.636 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site