On 08:23-20140620, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> + l-o,
> http://marc.info/?t=140316427500004&r=1&w=2 full thread
>
> Minor change in subject to indicate palmas regulator fail
>
> On 18:49-20140620, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> > On 06/20/2014 06:41 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > >* PGP Signed by an unknown key
> > >
> > >On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 03:44:46PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> > >
> > >>dbabd624d
> > >>regulator: palmas: Reemove open coded functions with helper functions
> > >
> > >>Keerthy, Nishanth, could it be that there is still something wrong with
> > >>the
> > >>REGULATOR_LINEAR_RANGE() definitions?
> > >
> > >>This seems to be the cause for our trouble, but the other questions might
> > >>still stand, in case there is interest in discussing them.
> > >
> > >There was a bug fix to the Palmas driver which just went to Linus the
> > >other day, are you sure this isn't fixed in mainline (or -next, it's
> > >been in -next for a week or something)?
> >
> > If you are talking about
> >
> > 6b7f2d82d5
> > regulator: palmas: Fix SMPS list for 0V
> >
> > then it is in my tree. There is actually no difference on
> > palmas-regulator.c between my tree and the current -next (or Linus'
> > tree for that instance).
> >
> > So it seems to be something else we are dealing with here.
>
> Your quote earlier in the thread
> "
> _regulator_is_enabled() *also* returns false
> "
>
> Got me curious. Looking at the patch:
> dbabd624d4eec50b623bab070d1e39a854b2d65c (regulator: palmas: Reemove
> open coded functions with helper functions)
> I noticed the following change
> palmas_is_enabled_smps -> regulator_is_enabled_regmap
>
> So I decided to search for enable_reg in palmas-regulator.c and I think
> it needs valid enable_reg, mask, value for regulator_is_enabled_regmap to work
> :).
>
> Maybe to be sure, we could print the following:
> PALMAS_SMPS8_VOLTAGE, PALMAS_SMPS8_CTRL, PALMAS_SMPS8_TSTEP,
>
> Anyways, I quickly boot tested the following on DRA7evm (which also uses
> Palmas):
> [ 1.933939] palmas-pmic 48070000.i2c:tps659038@58:tps659038_pmic:
> enable_reg = 0x00, mask =0x00
> [ 1.944210] smps123: 850 <--> 1250 mV at 1060 mV
> [ 1.950717] palmas-pmic 48070000.i2c:tps659038@58:tps659038_pmic:
> enable_reg = 0x00, mask =0x00
> [ 1.960754] smps45: 850 <--> 1150 mV at 1060 mV
> [ 1.967048] palmas-pmic 48070000.i2c:tps659038@58:tps659038_pmic:
> enable_reg = 0x00, mask =0x00
> [ 1.977072] smps6: 850 <--> 1650 mV at 1060 mV
> [ 1.983077] palmas-pmic 48070000.i2c:tps659038@58:tps659038_pmic:
> enable_reg = 0x00, mask =0x00
> [ 1.992994] smps7: 850 <--> 1030 mV at 1030 mV
> [ 1.999238] palmas-pmic 48070000.i2c:tps659038@58:tps659038_pmic:
> enable_reg = 0x00, mask =0x00
> [ 2.009161] smps8: 850 <--> 1250 mV at 1060 mV
> [ 2.015304] palmas-pmic 48070000.i2c:tps659038@58:tps659038_pmic:
> enable_reg = 0x00, mask =0x00
>
> It does seem to me that either set_mode also should use core functions
> OR you still need a palmas specific is_enable, enable/disable functions
> (contrary to the claim of the patch in question - which I think
> introduced regressions).
>
> Otherwise, completely untested diff below - can you give this a shot?
>
> diff --git a/drivers/regulator/palmas-regulator.c
> b/drivers/regulator/palmas-regulator.c
> index b982f0f..bbfe22f 100644
> --- a/drivers/regulator/palmas-regulator.c
> +++ b/drivers/regulator/palmas-regulator.c
> @@ -964,6 +964,20 @@ static int palmas_regulators_probe(struct
> platform_device *pdev)
> return ret;
> pmic->current_reg_mode[id] = reg &
> PALMAS_SMPS12_CTRL_MODE_ACTIVE_MASK;
> +
> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "enable_reg = 0x%02x, mask
> =0x%02x\n",
> + pmic->desc[id].enable_reg,
> + pmic->desc[id].enable_mask);
> + pmic->desc[id].enable_reg =
> + PALMAS_BASE_TO_REG(PALMAS_LDO_BASE,
> + palmas_regs_info[id].ctrl_addr);
> + pmic->desc[id].enable_mask =
> + PALMAS_SMPS12_CTRL_MODE_ACTIVE_MASK;
> + /*
> + * The following completely ignores
> + * pmic->current_reg_mode[id] (set_mode)
> + */
> + pmic->desc[id].enable_val = SMPS_CTRL_MODE_ON;
> }
>
> pmic->desc[id].type = REGULATOR_VOLTAGE;
rev 2 of the diff - this does depened on the fact that regulator_desc is
not memdup-ed by regulator code - that lets us do a bit of a trickery ;)
- and I dropped the prints.. Unrelated: This makes me wonder why
palmas_is_enabled_ldo at all?
Keerthy, Mark,
what do you think of the following (esp the flip of desc value):
diff --git a/drivers/regulator/palmas-regulator.c
b/drivers/regulator/palmas-regulator.c
index b982f0f..f01d9c5 100644
--- a/drivers/regulator/palmas-regulator.c
+++ b/drivers/regulator/palmas-regulator.c
@@ -299,7 +299,7 @@ static int palmas_set_mode_smps(struct regulator_dev *dev,
unsigned int mode)
struct palmas_pmic *pmic = rdev_get_drvdata(dev);
int id = rdev_get_id(dev);
unsigned int reg;
- bool rail_enable = true;
+ bool rail_enable = true, enable_val = true;
palmas_smps_read(pmic->palmas, palmas_regs_info[id].ctrl_addr, ®);
reg &= ~PALMAS_SMPS12_CTRL_MODE_ACTIVE_MASK;
@@ -318,6 +318,7 @@ static int palmas_set_mode_smps(struct regulator_dev *dev,
unsigned int mode)
reg |= SMPS_CTRL_MODE_PWM;
break;
default:
+ enable_val = false;
return -EINVAL;
}
@@ -325,6 +326,11 @@ static int palmas_set_mode_smps(struct regulator_dev *dev,
unsigned int mode)
if (rail_enable)
palmas_smps_write(pmic->palmas,
palmas_regs_info[id].ctrl_addr, reg);
+
+ /* Switch the enable value to ensure this is used for enable */
+ if (enable_val)
+ pmic->desc[id].enable_val = pmic->current_reg_mode[id];
+
return 0;
}
@@ -964,6 +970,14 @@ static int palmas_regulators_probe(struct platform_device
*pdev)
return ret;
pmic->current_reg_mode[id] = reg &
PALMAS_SMPS12_CTRL_MODE_ACTIVE_MASK;
+
+ pmic->desc[id].enable_reg =
+ PALMAS_BASE_TO_REG(PALMAS_LDO_BASE,
+ palmas_regs_info[id].ctrl_addr);
+ pmic->desc[id].enable_mask =
+ PALMAS_SMPS12_CTRL_MODE_ACTIVE_MASK;
+ /* set_mode overrides this value */
+ pmic->desc[id].enable_val = SMPS_CTRL_MODE_ON;
}
pmic->desc[id].type = REGULATOR_VOLTAGE;
--
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
